# Occupy Wallstreet **URL:** \ **Category:** Shift518 Off Topic\ **Created:** [September 29, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647 "2011-09-29T12:57:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 195
**Author:** ![Vovchandr](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/vovchandr/32/6275_2.png) [@Vovchandr](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Vovchandr)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647/195 "2011-10-28T05:44:35Z")
> [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 1. You’ve never been the ceo of a large corporation which is who you were talking about when you talked about severance packages which is really what my arguement was based on but it still works for low level supervision. > > - responsibility is not more work if by work you mean the literal definition of the amount of force it takes to perform a task. But even so, the purpose of supervisor is not to continue laying bricks. It’s to coordinate the brick layers to be effective. Noone said it was more physical labor. There is more responsibility which a company entrusts to you even on the lowest levels of supervision which is what I’m going to assume you meant when you said you’ve “done both”.If the laborers continue to fail to perform satisfactorily that is on the supervisor. More risk, more responsibility,more skill, more education, more money. You’re really going nowhere with that. There is no risk as the performance is rarely job dependent, maybe they won’t meet their new bonus this year but fuck it, according to your logic why the hell would you even go after the bonus if it’s only going to be heavily taxed and there is a lot more work and responsibility involved in meeting those goals? > [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 2.Wrong. Just because a company has shares which CAN be purchased by the public doesn’t make it the entire publics right to make policy for the company. They are willing to sell shares to anyone, they aren’t forcing you therefore if you choose to purchase shares you should probably agree with the dealings of that company. If you don’t have a share, you REALLY have no ground to stand on telling them what to do. If you do owns shares and they are not acting in a way you find ethical, or the board isn’t making decisions you approve of, you have a choice…sell your share and don’t support the company. No you’re wrong especially once you start considering the bailed out businesses wasting my money away. AIG : post bailout > $86,000 hunting trip: > > “This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s loan to AIG,” company spokesman Peter Tulupman said Wednesday. [http://www.mytwodollars.com/2008/10/17/aig-execs-caught-wasting-even-more-of-our-money-after-bailout/](http://www.mytwodollars.com/2008/10/17/aig-execs-caught-wasting-even-more-of-our-money-after-bailout/) How about the half million dollar party? > **[government – Orange County Register](https://www.ocregister.com/tag/government/)** And here is the rest of my tax payers money > 86% Bailout Cash Used For CEO Bonuses! > **[Shock!! 86% Bailout Cash Used For CEO Bonuses!](https://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/shock-86-bailout-cash-used-for-ceo-bonuses/)** > > GEF @ 11:58 AM EDT 86% of Bailout Money Used for Executive Bonuses When confronted about these numbers, the executives will always claim that the bonuses are paid out of other funds and company ear… Reward for hard work? They are collecting and living off government money. Remind you of welfare people in suits and BMW’s doesnt it? And I don’t want to hear anything about it being part of the contract, if that money isn’t going to good business use then it shouldn’t be given at all. Rewarding failure is not a good use. > [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 1. I do have the right to tell people to get a better job. But I also have a valid argument. Yes, it is true that i would not take a 20000 raise, if I saw 2000 dollars of it, because again 20,000 for a company means more responsibility (evil word i know) or more time or both and the small gain wouldn’t be worth it. But it is also true that I’m not complaining about my salary or taxes and I am content with what I make. This is the fundamental arguement against huge tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. If I make 100k a year, and 50k is taken out why not just work an easier less stressful jobe for 60k a year and take home 45k. In YOUR example of just getting a huge raise with no expectation of more resonsibility of course I’de take it but that wouldn’t happen. Again, if you work for a private business and feel you are underpaid at the bottom, it is private, get another job. See above. Why not just work at McDonalds? According to your logic you would have no responsibility and low tax. Great life! > [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 1. It isn’t impossible to compete. I’de say an incentive to hire domestically with taking away double taxation, pay only income tax which could be very low. And the increase in jobs overall in teh country would allow lower taxes per person. Not impossible to compete? Go smoke some more of whatever you’re sniffing. If a company according to your logic will do whatever it takes to make a profit, such as going to another country it always will. It is **IMPOSSIBLE** for any business in US to be able to price match cheap Indian and Chienese labor. > [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 1. I don’t remember the last time I voted for it but I do remember when I voted against it(as often as possible), and I didn’t say you voted for welfare, but there are people out there, beleive it or not who love welfare so much they actually vote for it. EX: The chick at the Obama rally who couldn’t wait for Obama to buy her a car…I’m pretty sure she didn’t much care about his stance on NAFTA. You want me to bring up quotes about people who voted for Bush who couldn’t wait for him to nuke the Middle East? How is that an argument. Welfare stays because people make money off it, period. > [@ef brackets on ITR seats??](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ef-brackets-on-itr-seats/46201/11): > > 1. I do actually know what happens when you take welfare away. Not only that, but I know how ridiculous those ON welfare act. Sure crime will surge and it would take some very aggressive and necessary policies to lower the surge. You konw where it starts though? How bout making qualifications for NEW applicants more difficult…that way we weed them out right away. > I’m sure many will turn to crime sure, but guess what, thats not my problem…I’m not going to gladly pay scumbags my hard earned money becuase of the threat that they will commit crimes (as if they are all the most law abiding group anyway) Let them commit crimes and be dealt with. At the end of the day we agree that the government has a spending program and not all welfare recipients are created equal. Testing should be stricter such as drug testing and it should be quite a bit limited time wise. You make it seem like businesses are innocent little things that should be left alone. Well until they stop lobbying and pressuring the government to keep maximizing their profits they aren’t innocent and it is my business not to mention destruction of small business and mom and pop stores by the conglomerates. Here I’ll leave you with this > **[Barton Biggs: Austerity Is a Big Mistake](https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/barton-biggs-austerity-big-mistake-124734101.html)** > > With half of Europe already committed to some degree of budgetary belt tightening and our own so-called ''Super Committee" mulling ways to slice a trillion dollars out of the federal budget, you'd think the argument for austerity would be a slamdunk,... and this > The Pentagon just gave Lockheed Martin $24 million, atop the billions they’ve already received, > > So why keep the F-22? Politics and money. Surprise! Each time one of the clipped-wing superbaubles is constructed, it taps workers in 44 states across the country. That’s 44 sets of legislators with a cruise missile pointed up their asses to keep those workers working, and to justify the Air Force’s mission to defend the skies. From what? I do not know. But this isn’t likely to change anytime soon—if ever. It’s just the way things work. The weapons industry trumps any rationality of the country those weapons are labeled to defend. It’s self-propagating, self-justifying, entirely an end in itself. > **[The sad odyssey of the F-22: America's big broken toy](https://jalopnik.com/the-sad-odyssey-of-the-f-22-americas-big-broken-toy-5854066)** > > The F-22 has been okayed to fly again, after being grounded, cleared, grounded, then cleared once more—all within a year. And yet, the Air Force hasn't fixed the plane's life threatening flaw. It doesn't seem like it cares. --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/occupy-wallstreet/260647)._