A picture is worth a thousand words (or less)

[enders_shadow]

So, since OWS is leaderless, some groups will invariably do things others do not....

like making demands. Demands are good, I think, for a movement. It's a target. And the target provides direction.

So, what direction do some OWS groups go in?
What are their demands?

Comments

[notmrgarrison]

It's not like anyone graduates from CC in 3 years.

[pastorlenny]

What do you mean by "create jobs?" You mean continue to artificially prop up the economy to take our indebtedness to even higher levels?

I thought the common theme of OWS was to wrest government from the control of corporate money -- not to offer juvenile opinions about economics.

Are you sure you're not working for the Other Side?

[enders_shadow]

Corporations want less public spending--making everything private. Starve govt of money, make them cut services, make people turn to private solutions.

Some people don't have money?
fuckem. no healthcare.
fuckem. no education.
fuckem. no fire/police dept.

fix the 394 deficient bridges in Washington state (where the pic was from)

that should create a couple jobs.

[pastorlenny]

Well, we certainly don't need OWS to propose higher taxes for the rich and spending government money on infrastructure. We have a mainstream political party that is already totally up for that. So all you have to do is vote Democratic. No reason for OWS if that's all it is.

[enders_shadow]

The Washington state legislature from 08 till now is proof to the contrary.

[kayjayuu]

But Naomi Wolf said the message was get money out of politics.

*confused*

[enders_shadow]

how on earth do you think we'd get those things passed by congress?
;)

[pastorlenny]

I would think that would be more to the point.

[jerseycajun]

If by closing loopholes, you mean reducing the tax code to a handful of pages I can read and fully comprehend in ten minutes, leaving little or no room for hidden back-door escape clauses, then yes, I want tax loopholes closed. That way, and no other way.

That's the minimum. I'd prefer shifting the tax code in favor of spending rather than earning and eliminate the IRS entirely, but I'll settle for the former in lieu of that.

[harry_beast]

If a straightforward, comprehensible tax code were implemented, many accountants, lawyers and bureaucrats would lose their jobs.

[mahnmut]

But, but, the protest sign says Create Jobs, not destroy jobs!

[jerseycajun]

As for job creation many of you are already aware of my contention on the complexity of trying to get predictable results in complex environments like economies so I'm hoping I won't have to go through why I believe it's futile in placing hope in the proposition that someone in a statehouse or capital building can arrange it from where they sit.

But if someone does need to see me present it again, I think I can dig up the last time I argued it.

[enders_shadow]

What about basic construction jobs?

Rebuilding roads and bridges? Those are easy enough for the state to make, should they allocate the funds to it, right?

[pastorlenny]

Before or after education, healthcare, assistance for the poor, the justice system, and regulation of businesses? What "funds" are you talking about exactly?

[enders_shadow]

The funds the state may allocate after it raises taxes on the 1%.

Why are you finding this difficult to follow?

and yes, those things too.