Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconblamethe1st: More from BlameThe1st





Details

Submitted on
January 20, 2012
File Size
26.5 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,169
Favourites
26 (who?)
Comments
82
×
After months of protesting the wrong people, the Occupy Wall Street movement finally got a clue and went to Washington D.C. on January 16 to stage Occupy Congress.

And boy was it a real bust!

Despite the liberal media praising it, the protest only managed to garner a few hundred protesters instead of the over ten thousand it claimed it was going to have. Add the fact that donations have been dwindling and protests across the country have been getting evicted, and the Occupy movement could very well be going through its death throes.

People keep asking me why I don't support the Occupy movement. After all, my hero Dr. Ron Paul supports it, many protesters are libertarians like myself, and the protests are against things I oppose like the bank bailouts, drug war, and Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Sadly, those are the only issues I agree with them on. Everything else (when they can manage to articulate them) is nothing more than Marxist utopian wet dreams which sound good on paper, but would do more harm than good if implemented in real life.

The following list of demands was posted on Occupy Wall Street's website a few months ago. The website claims that the list was an unofficial one posted by a single user and thus did not represent the views of the entire movement. That may be so, but I think it still perfectly articulates why I think the movement is so wrongheaded.

So without further ado, here is the list of demands, followed by my common-sense rebuttals:


Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

But what if I don't want to join a union? What if I don't want my job performance limited by needless union restrictions? If employees want to voluntarily band together to negotiate with their employers for better wages and working conditions, they should be free to do so, but only if others are free not to join if they don't want to. That's called freedom of association.

"But unions represent the will of the working middle class," I hear you say.

Then why do big labor unions support SOPA and PIPA? They claim the bills would help save jobs lost through online piracy—which is obviously false, as both bills would wind up costing jobs.

And what about teacher unions? Do they help the middle class when they lobby against offering students life-saving medicine, or transforming failing public schools into more efficient charter schools, or implementing education reform in general? Since when did job security take precedence over our children's education?

Can we please end this false dichotomy of "Unions good/Corporations evil"?


Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

Ah yes, the $20/hr. minimum wage fantasy. Tempting idea, but how will companies compensate for it? A multinational corporation making record profits could easily pay their errand boys $20/hr. (perhaps even more), but what about a local mom-and-pop restaurant forced to obtain a second mortgage on their home just to start their own business? Would they be able to pay their busboy $20/hr. to bus tables and wash dishes? I highly doubt it.

And that's the problem with minimum wage: it kills entry-level jobs, thus hurting small businesses and poor people—in other words, the 99%!

And then there's "maximum" wage. Hey, here's an idea: if you really care about inequality, why not just have an equal set wage across the board? That way, everyone gets paid exactly the same? That's the Marxist mantra: "All work is equal!" Because the work of a janitor mopping the bathroom floors is equivalent to that of a CEO who manages the very existence of the company, right? Right?!

As with minimum wage, maximum wage sound good—on paper—until market forces hit companies with a heavy dose of reality. Case in point, both Ben & Jerry's and Herman Miller had significant caps on their top employee's salaries, but when faced with economic hardships, forcing them to seek new management, they were forced to drop these caps.

Maximum wage makes it difficult to hire for top-level positions just as minimum wage makes it difficult to hire for entry-level positions. Businesses get hurt. Workers get hurt. The 99% get hurt.


Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.

Let's see here: 6 hours a day x 6 days a week x 50 weeks in a year – 6 weeks of paid vacation = WHO THE HELL IS DOING ALL THE WORK IN THIS COUNTRY?! In other words, you want workers to be paid more for working fewer hours? And you expect businesses to compensate for this how?


Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.

No real opinion on this, other than economic martial law probably isn't the best term of action. Martial law period rarely is.


Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.

So expecting people to learn English in an English-speaking country is racist and xenophobic? I always thought it was common sense. Go figure!


Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

So anyone should be allowed to wander into this country and set up residence? Even if they're convicted criminals? Even if they have a contagious disease that may spread and cause a pandemic? (Swine Flu, anyone?)

Look, I get it: America is the "Great Melting Pot" built upon immigration. And I do want people to come into this country and make a better life for themselves. But is it too hard (or xenophobic) to ask that immigrants come into this country legally and with proper documentation, that they apply for citizenship, pay taxes, and learn our language and customs so they can better integrate into our society? Or is that racist of me?

And concerning amnesty for illegal immigrants: how well has that worked out in the past? Nixon granted amnesty. Carter granted it. Reagan granted it. Clinton granted it. Both Bushes granted it. Anyone else seeing a pattern here? Immigrants illegally enter country. We grant them amnesty. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. I'm sorry, but what's the point of amnesty again? Because it's obviously not curbing illegal immigration.


Create a single-payer, universal health care system.

"You don't want universal healthcare?!" I hear you cry. "Do you want people to die without healthcare, you immoral social Darwinist?!"

As a matter of fact, no, I don't want people to die without healthcare. And no, I don't want universal healthcare.

You know what else I don't want? Hospitals that turn over bed sheets in order to save on laundry bills. Cancer patients being denied life-prolonging medicine because they cost too much. Pregnant women being forced to give birth in a hospital hallway because other hospitals are too full. Hospitals where patients are more likely to starve than prisoners. Clinics where hip operations are 20 percent more likely to go wrong. Tens of thousands of hospitals being shut down due to budget cuts. (Need I continue?)

So yeah, color me unimpressed when socialists brag about Britain's universal healthcare system, because gleaning through British newspaper headlines gives me a different perspective. Even the British Health Secretary says the system is royally screwed beyond reason. You may want a healthcare system where hospital wards have worse conditions than most third world countries. I don't!

Yes, our healthcare system has problems. No, universal healthcare is not the solution. There are plenty of smaller, less radical solutions we can implement to improve the system we already have—and we don't even have to spend a dime!


Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.

I don't like special interests hijacking our elections either, but I highly doubt repealing corporate personhood is the solution, and if you feel that corporations should be sued and taxed, then neither should you, as corporate personhood makes that possible. Even the ACLU supported Citizens United. Hard to argue with them.


Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.

Progressive liberals keep insisting that everyone pay their fair share in taxes, yet insist that the rich pay more in taxes (even though statistics show, time and again, that the rich already carry the lion's share of the national tax burden). Wouldn't it make more sense to institute a flat tax across the board, allowing everyone to pay at the same rate? The rich would still pay more than the poor, but at least it would be at an even rate.

But no: taxing everyone equally is unfair and taxing some more than others is fair. Up is down. Left is right. Slavery is freedom. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. That's liberal logic!


Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.

As with overall regulation, environmental regulations have been exponentially increasing, not decreasing. The EPA alone has increased their federal regulations from over 7 thousand rules in 1976 to over 169 thousand in 2009. Hard to argue for far stricter regulations when we tax cow farts and regulate farm dust.

"But we need stricter regulation to prevent another BP oil spill," I hear you rebut.

You mean the same BP oil spill that occurred on federal property, was caused by an industry regulated by an inept federal bureaucracy, and whose economic liability was capped by the federal government (allowing for such risky behavior in the first place)?

And screw animal rights. Animals are not human beings. They don't have the mental cognition to recognize the concept of rights. This isn't to say that we should abuse them, just that we shouldn't give them the same legal standing as humans.


Allow workers to elect their supervisors.

No real opinion on this.


Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.

Social Security comprises 20 percent of our federal budget and is quickly going bankrupt. And you want to put more people onto the system?

"It's not going bankrupt!" I hear you say. "It's solvent until 2036!" (Which is just a positive way of saying that it's going broke by 2036.)

Progressive liberals keep telling us that public policy needs to change with the times. And since life expectancy has been increasing since Social Security was first passed (back when most seniors probably weren't expected to live past 65, and thus be on the dole for that long), shouldn't the collection age for Social Security be raised? Or is that akin to shoving Grandma off a cliff? (You know, as opposed to allowing Social Security to dry out completely!)


Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.

Please refer to my response to "Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90."


Ban the private ownership of land.

"Oh you right-wing conservatives and your obsession with property rights! Those are the only rights you care about, aren't they?"

Actually, no. I do care about other rights. But I also care about property rights (something most progressive liberals don't care about). You want to know why? I need but give one example: Kelo v. City of New London.

This controversial Supreme Court decision involved Susette Kelo whose house (the very first she had ever owned), along with those of other home owners in New London, Connecticut, was threatened to be seized through eminent domain and sold to a local corporation. The Court ruled 5-4 against her and the other homeowners, claiming that such economic development fell under the definition of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Their land was seized, and was supposed to go to an economic redevelopment plan that promised over three thousand jobs and over 1 million in tax revenue. Instead, this "public land" remains today a barren lot, the site of a city dump.

Don't believe in private property rights? Believe the government should hold all property in common? Then you support this court decision! You may not agree with it personally, but you support the decision behind it. You support the government seizing another person's land and doing with it as they please, even if it means reducing it to a useless city dump.

I, on the other hand, believe everyone has the right to the fruit of their labor, and that includes property. If man is not entitled to his own property, then how can he be entitled to his own body?


Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.

In other words, ban the only form of schooling that's actually educating our children. Ignore the hundreds of studies that show that home-schooled children outperform their public-schooled peers on standardized tests. Ban homeschooling and private schools. Make education a government monopoly. Because monopolies make everything better, right? It worked for the phone company!

To show just how draconian and backwards this would be, only a handful of countries have banned homeschooling. One of them is Brazil—which isn't exactly known for its excellent educational system!


Reduce the age of majority to 16.

I don't even trust 16-year-olds with driving, let alone voting. Some of them may be intelligent, but most of them are complete idiots. But if they want to vote, they should also be expected to pay taxes and join the military. You can't have the privileges without the responsibility.


Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.

So you're all for building more prisons? Where else are we going to put all these inmates?

I don't support capital punishment anymore (as it doesn't deter violent crime), but I still support life imprisonment, at least for the most violent of offenders. Not everyone can be rehabilitated!


Release all political prisoners immediately.

Only item I agree with.


Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Make that two items I agree with.


Abolish the debt limit.

So America should be allowed to infinitely pile up debt? Anyone else see a serious problem with this?

Here's a saner solution: why not pay off the debt we already have? Instead of worrying about how much we can max out on our national credit card, let's do something to eliminate the debt we already incurred. And yes, that means cutting spending. There are no other options. We spend too much. We need to cut back. And we should start with the three items we spend the most on: military and entitlement programs. Combined, that's 60% of our federal budget. There's no excuse for that. Slash military spending. End all wars. Withdraw overseas military bases. Reform entitlement programs. It won't be much, but it would be a good start.


Ban private gun ownership.

Ignoring the fact that gun control does nothing to deter gun violence, as cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest violent crime rates. Under gun control, only three people own guns: the police, the military, and criminals. But forget criminals! At this point, with the militarization of our police—something that OWS protesters know all too well—the police pose a larger threat than criminals! And you seriously want to give them more power over law-abiding citizens? More power to the police state then!


Strengthen the separation of church and state.

There's no official state religion, and there's no state church. Separation of church and state seems to being doing a good enough job.

Let's not forget that separation goes both ways: not only is it separation of church from state, but also state from church. If the church can't interfere with the state, then the state can't interfere with the church. Sounds fair, right? So why do progressive liberals support taxing churches and dictating employment standards for religious organizations?

What we really need is a more lenient interpretation of church/state separation. Does it really make sense to cut the microphone of a valedictorian for mentioning Jesus in their speech, or to prohibit a school-age student from hanging his "Happy Birthday Jesus" ornament on a state capitol Christmas tree, or to suspend a student from drawing a cross during a school assignment, or prevent Mother Teresa from being commemorated on a postage stamp, or prevent a pair of crossbeams from being featured in a 9/11 memorial museum? I respect separation of church and state, but good grief do some people take it way too far!


Immediate debt forgiveness for all.

Isn't it ironic to protest bailing out big banks but to demand the forgiveness of all debt?

"That's totally different!" I hear you cry in protest. "Those bailouts went to corporate fatcats! The bailouts we want will go to struggling Americans, especially students burdened by student loan debt."

Fine. College students shouldn't have to graduate with a crushing amount of debt—most of which was caused by the student loan bubble created by the federal government subsidizing student loans! But how, pray tell, do you suggest relieving them of this debt? With taxpayer money? So you want to raise taxes during an economic crisis when most are scrapping the bottom of the barrel as it is? How will that help the 99%?

Oh, I see: you just want to raise taxes on the rich. They clearly don't pay their "fair share" in taxes. The top one percent only pays 40 percent of the nation's income tax and 27 percent of the nation's tax burden. Lazy freeloaders! They should pay 400 percent! That will solve everything (even though merely confiscating all wealth from every billionaire in the country would barely make a dent in our deficit).


End the 'War on Drugs'.

That makes three things I agree with.

Unfortunately, that's all I can agree with. Everything else, as I clearly demonstrated, is dangerously naïve! Don't get me wrong: I would love to live in a world where I had a $20 minimum wage and six weeks of paid vacation, where all student loan debt was forgiven, and where the government gave everything from healthcare to education for free (and by "free," I mean at the expense of Bill Gates and other rich people). I would also love to live in a world with lollipop trees and Mountain Dew oceans. That's not happening anytime soon, and neither are any of those utopian demands.

And this is why I fear Occupy Wall Street. If these moronic protesters actually managed to get any of these insane demands fulfilled, the result would not be a progressive socialist Keynesian utopia. It would be a dystopian wasteland brought about by an eventual economic collapse. And I wouldn't want to live in said world, not without a good shotgun. (Oh wait, I forgot, firearms would be banned! Ah crap!)
And I'm apparently "radical" for wanting to return to a constitutionally-limited federal government? If these Occupy goons had it their way, America would be worse than Somalia!
Add a Comment:
 
:icon345rv5:
345rv5 Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2014  Hobbyist
Well one thing for sure, we all know the answer why Occup Wall Street failed. It failed because  SJW's poisoned the movement. They first poisoned the term Feminism and Liberalism by kicking out actual liberal and moderate eilgaiatrain Feminists in the  1970's and 1980's out of Feminism and the Democratic Party. They kicked out the Anti Drug War, Pro LGBT equality Democrats in favor of corporatist,Feminist Democrats and as a result, started their assault on acedemia in the 1990's and in the 2000's successfully conditioned a generation of  children to carry these confusing, authoritarian brands of Marxist beliefs and hence Occupy Wall Street was doomed to fail because the Democrats were already lacking real Liberals to begin with since every real cultural Liberal became a Libetarain.


Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

As someone who considers himself Left-Libertarian and think Unions can be a necessary force in society, this is so naive and misguided.While i'm all for holding Coropations accountable for their actions and holding their feet to the feet to the fire, i'm equally against creating a middle man with too much power. As you know, i criticize anyone with too much power, be it the government, coropations or unions and i think the Unions are too corrupt at this point to trust.

Yeah the fact they supported SOPA and PIPA prove they're part of the coropations they're fighting against because no representative of the middle class wants SOPA or PIPA which is to the benefit of the corporate weasels. Nothing they're doing nowadays seems to be in support for the people. The Unions are basically their own coropation. If Liberals want to hate coropations, they also have to hate Unions.

As someone who has revletaitve fucked over by coropations and unions, i don't see them as one being evil and another being good, i see them as flawed but necessary business functions that need to be reform and oppose the stauts quo of both.


Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.

Personally i consider myself someone who wants the living wage at at least $10-12,  $18 is way too much to demand for a entry level job and that would hurt small businesses. People need to be careful between choosing to  get a living wage and  bankrupting small business.

Also speaking as someone who can be considered Culturally Marxist, i find it ridiculous that anyone would think it's a good idea to enforce equality of outcome. You need a system based on merit and work to maintain sustainability. Many of these so called Marxists don't know that the problems in their thinking is  the paying everyone for different jobs is how Communism died in Russia and why North Korea and Cuba are shitty nations.  While it's no doubt a good thing to want equality, you should want equality of opportunity, not outcome.


Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.

That's ridiculous indeed, that's not  consistent with market values. While i think overworking people is not a good idea, neither is underworking.


Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.

Yeah, you're fucking  fighting corrupt government and you're brilliant idea is to invite more corrupted government? I'm sorry but what again  ? That's like  going into a lions den covered in a meatsuit level of stupid.


Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.

English Only Laws are somehow racist, nevermind the fact Spanish is allowed and how is  repealing English Only Laws going to help battle the 1%?


Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.

As pro Immigration as i can be , i think this law is ridiculous idealistic and moronic.  I think  you're position on Immigration is much more reasonable than either this bullshit  idealistic PC law or Obamas Right Wing law.


Create a single-payer, universal health care system. 

I have one, a Pubic Option that people can choose between Private Insurance and Government insurance. Better than the shitty system we currently have or UK's poorly implented government insurance. 

Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers. 

Well i say, fuck money in politics but that's putting  a bandage on a hiroshima sized mess that is corporate cyronism.


Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%. 

I'm all for fair share of taxes and if flat taxes does what it should do, that's a good thing.


Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.

On Environmental regulations, i'm on the fence on that, no one wants a heavily polluted environment but the problem is that it's already controlled by corruption and special intrests.

Agreed 100% on Animal Rights. 


Allow workers to elect their supervisors.

Same here


Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.

Wasn't aware SSI was having problems


Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.

Same here with previous response.

Ban the private ownership of land. 

WTF?  I'm all for Social Equality and equality of opportunity but i'm i'm against this notion that banning private property is somehow pro freedom. Porviate rights is part of a free society and if any of these"Liberals"  cared about liberalism, wouldn't the right to property be a humans right ?


Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.

Putting our religious differences aside ( Me being Atheist and all ) and my own disagreement about home schooling being the best form of teaching, what these idiots are doing are calling for a ban on free speech and freedom of expression which is against the Frist Amendment which we can both agree is anti freedom. Also isn't banning home schooling also a violation of the separation of church and state  ? Calling for a ban on something based on religious beliefs( or likely non religious beliefs) is a massively Authoritarian  and hypocritical move on the part of the SJW's.

You know how you counter propaganda ?  With facts and evidence supporting you're claims, banning anything for any purpose damages you cause and makes you instantly the villain. Also i like how these SJW's are fighting  against government monopolies yet want to create one. I'm for  Education being available for everyone  and affordable for everyone, not for banning private schools or education.


Reduce the age of majority to 16.

How would that help soicety ?  I'm not even cool with 16 year olds fucking in most states or driving let alone voting.


Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.

What ?  I'll be frank. I'm against the way the Death Penalty is being misused and mishandled but i'm not 100% against the Death Peantly but i'm against how people think it works. Life in Imprison should be the more preferable option because the Death Penalty system kills too many innocent people by accdiental, i think the Death Pneatly should eb reserved for the very worse criminals like that guilty of treason.


Release all political prisoners immediately.

Agreed here too 


Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Agreed as well.


Abolish the debt limit.

I do and boy it's stupid. We should be fixing and lowering debt,not pretending it doesn't exist. 

I'm all for reforming SSI and Weflare much like my hero Eisenhower did.

I'm against the Military Industrial Complex much like my hero Eisenhower was.

And we don't need this useless, clunky overseas empire bases when we can liteary send drones across the world.




Ban private gun ownership.

How the fuck do these morons function ?  Seriously banning guns is somehow become a Liberal stance?  Mind you that fucktard Regan who was a Conservative, racist Segregationist was the one who popularized gun control. I don't trust our police because look what happened in Ferugson and OWS, i don't trust the mitliary because one coup can undermine democracy and i think i rather handle myself most of the time. 


Strengthen the separation of church and state.

Agreed, if anything  it's hypocritical they want to change the separation of Church and state  but want to ban Homeschooling for religious reasons.


Immediate debt forgiveness for all.

It's not ironic, it's hypocrtical.


End the 'War on Drugs'.

Same here.

Agreed this is just stupid, no wonder it failed.

And you haven't even menitoned the thing that killed OWS , The dreaded Porgressive Stack.
Reply
:iconduriel-999:
Duriel-999 Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2014
I'm not with you 100%, but enough to say well said.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks! ;)
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
They threatened to rape my sister when walked by an occupy protest, for the hell of it! If I was there I'd be breaking skulls. I mean they also tried to bomb an interstate bridge and many women that attend the protests have reported being gang raped.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Weird how you don't have any weirdos like that at the Tea Party.
Reply
:iconcrimsonfalke:
CrimsonFALKE Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I know how wierd 
Reply
:iconmystitrinqua:
MystiTrinqua Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree with this on a lot of points (particularly homeschooling, gun control, unions & punishing job/wage creators.) BUT:
A word on the NHS:

Firstly: We here in blighty all know the NHS is royally fucked, and I can give you a blow-by-blow of explicit reasons why, but before I do - the former Health Secretary (the one who wrote the article, who has now been sacked because he couldn't force the privatisation through fast enough) is a *Conservative* party member. The Conservatives (Republicans basically) central ideology is the destruction of the welfare state and total privatisation, because they are financed and owned by the City of London. Mr Lansley can be trusted about as far as you can throw him. My one bugbear about Americans using the NHS as an example of why a universal health system should not be adopted is that they are forever quoting british newspaper headlines rather than researching actual NHS workers. You know who influences the british newspaper headlines? Rupert Murdoch. Guess what Rupert Murdoch doesn't like? Anything in the public sector, because he can't lean on people or buy people off directly to control it.

Anyways, back to why the NHS is on its last legs:
We've just had 10 years of a Labour (Liberal equiv) government who restructured the NHS so that the management had to sacrifice patient care in order to keep target-setting beaurocrats happy. Any management staff who did not conform to the 'target culture' so to speak were sacked and replaced with someone who would, no matter the cost. This is combined with a distinct rise in the number of managers, middle-managers and consultants, and a distinct loss of front-line doctors and nurses. Again, patient care suffers because the managers at the top are more concerned with target meeting & box ticking exercises than real patient care, and the nurses have to bow down to their managers. (Sadly our social workers & child protection services have gone exactly the same way.)

Compounding this is the changes to the education of nurses in our country. Twenty years ago nurses were expected to actually get their hands dirty without complaining, for the sake of patients. Now they are treated like crap by the doctors one level above them and are told that if they don't want to do a job, if it's too "below" them (in some hospitals this can be as much as even checking if patients need a drink every hour or so), they leave it to the health practitioner, the person one level below them, and go back to sitting at their desk drinking tea and gossiping. Sometimes there's only one health practitioner on an entire ward. Hence, patients get "worse care than prisoners."

The current government (Cameron & Co) have basically decided that in order to fund their massive public sector cuts they are going to force the privatisation of the NHS by driving it into the ground any way they can, rather than fix the problems labour created with their target-focused approach. The UK has private health providers already (i.e. BUPA) which offer better standards of service for a cost - but at least here I know that I've always got the NHS to fall back on if I need it and simply cannot afford to go private. I wont be left bleeding on a hospital bed because the hospital staff won't treat me without a credit card or insurance number.
//endrant.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
This really seems to prove my point. You really can't remove the profit motive from healthcare. It costs money, and you have to pay for it either way. And the folks at top have to make cuts to cover costs, and with socialized medicine, that often means rationing.
Reply
:iconmystitrinqua:
MystiTrinqua Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
[link]
This is what I mean when I say Cameron & Co are deliberatly trying to kill the NHS. :/
Reply
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ok, I was forming a response, then realized it was getting long, so I put it over here instead: [link] No point in cluttering up your response board with my own rant related debate.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Interesting. I'll give it a read.
Reply
:iconpermafry42:
Permafry42 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Student General Artist
Mechanize 75% of the jobs, and use the economic prosperity from 75% of the population now being free to do their own jobs as a way to compensate the other 25% of jobs that only humans can do...
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Which has been the case since the Industrial Revolution.
Reply
:iconpermafry42:
Permafry42 Featured By Owner Feb 21, 2013  Student General Artist
Sure, machines assist with the majority of the jobs we do, but they haven't completely replaced us as the workers yet to leave us free from having to spend out time do the work on those issues in the first place. Besides maintenance on the machines, only 25% of jobs require humans to have any part of them. All the menial jobs we do could be done automatically, yet we make a system that encourages people to work over time doing jobs that robots and machines could do better. If 75% of jobs were fully mechanized, it would mean that people would only have to work 1/4 as many days as they do now. However, thanks to a pseudo-capitalist (or more accurately corporatist-authoritarian) system, there is a much greater incentive to continue using humans as the labor class. The investment in full mechanization would long term remove the need for sweat shop filled will slave-like conditions, and in turn would allow the middle class to work only 1-2 days a week, rather than the 5+ work days schedule we currently have. It could still work with a free market system too, meaning that we wouldn't have to even change our monetary system besides dealing with the 0.0001% of the population that has a huge portion of the wealth from illegal actions and loopholes that they lobbied for in the first place. It isn't some Utopian fantasy either; the resources for that level of mechanization has long since been achieved, and the technology, as you said, has been there since the industrial revolution. The only thing preventing it is the corporatist government/federal reserve ponsie scheme currently preventing this technology from being spreading due to the fake debt the federal reserve is lying about so that we believe we can't afford to create such expensive technologies. IMO the problem with the Occupy Wall street is that is focused on the 1% at first instead of the 0.0001% that is currently controlling our money through the federal reserve and protecting the system using a corrupt two party dictatorship. I believe that, thanks in part to mechanization, we can and will one day end poverty throughout the whole world. The question IMO is how long are we going to continue waiting for real change to occur before we fix the corruption in our system and in the people who are controlling it. IMO Iceland's revolution has shown the world that it can be done peacefully so long as we are all able to fight together against the corruption.

Sorry for the text rant; just felt particularly angry today after hearing that Canada's government has been exposed for labeling and profiling certain protesters, including occupy, as domestic terrorists, even if they are peaceful protesters... :(
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
"Canada's government has been exposed for labeling and profiling certain protesters, including occupy, as domestic terrorists, even if they are peaceful protesters..."

Well, they have to silent dissent somehow.
Reply
:icondimension-dino:
Dimension-Dino Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012
The depths that government (and humanity) will sink to never ceases to amaze me...
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Which is why it always baffles me when people, especially atheists, claim to have "faith in humanity." Considering the mass war, oppression, and injustice recorded all throughout human history, what is there to have faith in? Then again, if faith is belief without evidence, then it does make sense to have “faith” in humanity. That's the only way to have such confidence in it.
Reply
:icontohokari-steel:
Tohokari-Steel Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012
I was homeschooled from fifth grade to college. When I have children, I'd prefer to homeschool them rather than send them to public school. Why? Because public schools basically do what the Occupiers accused homeschooling of doing: people use it to feed children propaganda.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
That’s the problem with public education: there is no “education” to speak of.
Reply
:iconcat-man-dancing:
Cat-man-dancing Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2012
I would agree with you on most issues, except:

Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.
The death penalty does prevent murders. Of prison guards, workers, and other inmates. The person in prison who has the most freedom is the one who is serving life with no chance of parole. They can do whatever they want, to whoever they want, and there is no effective way to punish them. Not without incurring massive lawsuits, at least.
I have been inside of a prison. Some of those people should NEVER be allowed back out in society!

Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.
It would become very difficult to get a loan, and more people would just stop making payments. Most mortgages are sold to private investment accounts that are held by ordinary people who would lose big time.

Allow workers to elect their supervisors.
Then the supervisors would be the most popular, not the most qualified. I would rather work for someone who knows what they are doing than someone who is just "most popular".

Just a few thoughts.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I personally find nothing morally reprehensible about the death penalty. But while I don’t object to it, I don’t support it either. If there was a way to make sure that the convicted was guilty without a shadow of a doubt, and no one innocent could be accidentally put to death, and if the death penalty was more effective and less costly than life imprisonment, then I could support it. But seeing as how none of that is the case, then I can’t support it.

Indeed. Seems like those who have good intentions are blind to the unintentional consequences to most of their policies. The old saying goes that the road to good intentions pave the road to hell.

Indeed. Popularity doesn’t equal right. Then again, we live in a post-modern era where truth is based on consensus rather than on objective reality.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I can't understand why I didn't fave this earlier.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
You must have glossed over it.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Probably. I read it more thoroughly this time.
Reply
:iconr55:
R55 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2012
If I were in charge, know how I'd handle the Occupy movement?

Trust me you wouldn't wanna know.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Something tells me it involve violence, doesn’t it?
Reply
:iconcat-man-dancing:
Cat-man-dancing Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2012
Fire hoses. And soap. Be doing them a favor, from what I've seen. And cleaning up their messes.
If it's Winter, even better.
Reply
:iconr55:
R55 Featured By Owner Aug 22, 2012
And mass-arrests.
Reply
:iconr55:
R55 Featured By Owner Aug 17, 2012
When people such as those losers threaten the lives and property of others, action must be taken (as a last resort of course); otherwise, the public safety could be placed in jeopardy.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Understandable. Though there are many instance of police brutality that was simply uncalled for. For example, there’s this instance where protesters were just standing around and a police office just comes by and pepper sprays them: [link]

And let’s not forget the incident in UC Davis: [link]
Reply
:iconneetsfagging322297:
Neetsfagging322297 Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2012
I find it funny they started their protests in fall, it shows none of them have been homeless or even outside their homes for longer periods of times.
Reply
:iconf14ace:
f14ace Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2012
On the whole "unionize everyone" thing: As a member of the IBEW (and hopefully soon to be a former member), I can attest to how much unions suck. Unions in the north have too much political power and they put employers out of business, and unions in the south are so weak and feeble that they're pretty much useless.

Now, the guys who tell me how wonderful it is being in a union are all from up north but as someone livign and working in the south, this is the experience I've had being a union member.

1. They force you to rely on them for employment. You aren't allowed to look for your own work. If there aren't any union jobs available, too bad.

2. Apprenticeship classes are ridiculously expensive. Apprentices have to pay $400 for books plus a $100 lab fee each term and they don't get paid for attending class, even if they miss work because of that class.

By contrast, I found a non-union employer who offered apprenticeships with paid classes, no book fees and no lab fee.


3. When the union assigns you a job where you have to travel, they don't pay any of your traveling expenses. It especially sucks when you're an apprentice who only gets paid $11 an hour and they expect you to not only pay for a hotel yourself, but to also pay for the gas and food, which really sucks when you're working 30 miles from where you work. (as was the case of my most recent job).

4. One of the "great benefits" to being in a union was that you supposedly don't have to pay for your own health insurance. Well, that's because your employer pays it for you. Well, I've been unemployed since April and guess what happens when you go a month without working. That's right, your insurance payment doesn't get paid! I got a letter in the mail telling me that my health and dental insurance coverage has been terminated and that in order to continue receiving coverage, I would have to pay a monthly rate of $375. That's more than my truck payment and auto insurance payment combined! Which brings us to the next point...

5. I own a Nissan Frontier pickup truck. Well guess what. The union only wants you to drive vehicles that were made by union labor and Nissans are not built by union labor. I've had all manner of threats and crap made against me because of what I drive to work. They claim that if I don't buy an American brand vehicle (which are made by union labor) then I'm not supporting American jobs, never mind the fact that my truck was built in Tennessee at a plant that employs thousands of American workers. So apparently you're not American unless you're union according to them. Speaking of which...

6. A few years ago, Hyundai build a huge plant in my town which has since created thousands of local jobs, generated millions of dollars in tax revenue for the city and state, and revitalized the local economy. Unfortunately, United Auto Workers is doing everything they can to shut that plant down. They want to put thousand of people out of work and devastate the local economy. And why? Because the workers at Hyundai refuse to unionize. Oh yeah, the Hyundai plant pays better than any of the union jobs where I live.

7. I heard that in Wisconsin, unions were trying get business owners to put signs in their windows saying they supported the unions and anyone who refused received threats. I also see where they've been trying to force small family farmers to join public service unions. Now, why should somebody who is self-employed have to join a union, other than to remove competition?

8. On one of the jobs I was working on, a guy was handing out pro Obama bumper stickers. I refused to accept one and had all manner of threats and harassment because of it. I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm not gonna put his damn sticker on my truck (which they threatening to vandalize).

9. The union I'm in allows contractors to hire out-of-state workers on local jobs. Because of this, we had a contractor from Michigan that came to Alabama and the superintendent hired all of his buddies from Michigan to come down, screwing all the local workers out of a job. All the Michigan assholes bitched and moaned about how low Alabama's pay scale was and how hot it was here and how the job sucked. This pissed me off because I really would have liked to have that job that those ungrateful bastards screwed me out of.

10. The union takes $50 out of each paycheck to pay for the committee's vacation. I don't get paid vacations or paid holidays.

11. Many of the union workers I've worked with are lazy and wormy. They yell and threaten you if you work too fast and they will deliberately do a poor job so that work has to be redone in order to delay the job and make it last longer.



Yet after all this shit, they still expect me to pay $40 in dues every month. All in all, unions are run by a bunch of thugs and I hate dealing with them. It would be great if they actually did what they were supposed to but unfortunately they've turned into political tools. They want to tell me who to vote for, what kind of car I can own, and what stores I can shop at. The union expects me to support them night and day yet when I actually need their help, they turn their backs on me. Well, I've had enough. I am currently seeking employment elsewhere and as soon as somebody else offers me a job, I'm flipping the union the bird and quitting. Their pension is pathetic and the pay scale really isn't that great either. Maybe I'll go get a job at that Hyundai plant they hate so much.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Well said.

If you want to band together with your fellow employees and negotiate with your boss on pay and benefits, you have every right to do so, and no one should prevent you from doing so. But as with corporations, I only have a problem with them when they start using the power of the state to tilt the playing field in their player. Consolidated power is dangerous, be it from a government, corporation, or union.
Reply
:iconink-mage:
Ink-mage Featured By Owner May 1, 2012
Another reason why I do not support OWS, besides the obvious listed; is because on day 1- they had the American Nazi, and Communist party USA backing and supporting them. When I first heard such a thing, I didn't believe it. Then I went to American Nazi and Communist Party USA, and sure enough they were. There were also supporters of Hamas as well.

The overall protest against the greed and corruption, is all well and good I agree with it. Though yes they were aiming it all at the wrong people, and should have been at Washington, where the policies that have allowed and even forced banks to what it is they do- and part of why the economy is a mess (Dodd & Frank)
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think they have their hearts in the right place, but not necessarily their heads. Add that with the fact that they lack a coherent message and how they’re attracting people mostly from the fringes in society, and you have one giant clusterfuck.
Reply
:iconanon371:
Anon371 Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2012
OWS isn't real, the demonstrations are fake the protestors are actors, its started by the elite whose kids play the protestors then dress up as cops the next day and are using it to turn america into a socialist country
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Um, okay.
Reply
:iconcolliequest:
Colliequest Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Agree with you for the most part here. IMO, OWS only has one or two good points, if any.
And the way to get their point across is to totally sit on public property and refuse to clean up after themselves. Totally.
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
"Wouldn't it make more sense to institute a flat tax across the board, allowing everyone to pay at the same rate?"

I just had to comment on this, because it's the one constant fallacy I'm really sick of hearing.

Let's say we have a flat rate tax of 10%.

The person making $10,000 pays $1,000.

The person making $100,000 pays $100,000.

Now you're saying, well, what's wrong with this? Everyone's paying the same rate, and the rich are even paying more. That's fair, right?

Well, no. It's only fair because you're not bothering to actually think beyond the shallow considerations.

See, thing is, people need to actually have enough to live on, and there's a bare minimum that you need to have a reasonably healthy lifestyle. Getting $10,000 as a result means that most or all of your money is going out to necessities and maybe a few small luxuries, with little to no excess money left over.

So even though $1,000 is a small sum, it's still a huge burden because it's coming out of funds that are already being all spent on necessities. Having to now shell out $1,000 on top of it all may mean not being able to pay rent, buy groceries, pay bills, etc.

In contrast, the person getting $1,000,000 has, barring massive mismanagement of money, more than enough money for necessities and plenty of luxuries. And even if he pays out $100,000 to taxes, that still leaves him $900,000 left over. That means he's obviously not going to be unable to afford necessities or even unable to afford luxuries, unlike our poor person up there, despite paying much more in taxes.

So the thing is, you're actually correct. Taxing everyone equally is fair and taxing some more than others is unfair. The problem is that the correct metric to use for equality is not percentages or raw numbers, but the burden it puts on your ability to support yourself. Even though $100,000 is more than $1,000, the latter creates more of a burden on the poor person's ability to support themself, than the $100,000 creates a burden on the rich person's ability.

So that's why it's fair to charge the rich person more and the poor person less, because the rich person can pay more without putting an undue burden on their ability to support themself, while the poor have to pay less so they aren't having an undue burden placed on them.
Reply
:iconvvraith:
VVraith Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nothing says "power to the 99%" like banning private gun ownership. :iconkurt-wimmer-club:
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed. In a world under gun control, only the police and criminals own guns—and at this point, I fear the police more than I do the criminals. The Occupy protestors should realize this the most, considering they’ve been the target of police brutality. And yet they want to give the police an upper hand by only allowing them to own guns? That’s literally shooting yourself in the foot!
Reply
:iconvvraith:
VVraith Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It really boggles the mind. This is supposed to be some sort of populist movement, and yet...just...SIGH...
Reply
:iconeses81:
eses81 Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2012
If you want to convince people about the NHS, the last paper you should link to is the Daily Mail. Look at your sources.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Why? What's wrong with the Mail?
Reply
:iconeses81:
eses81 Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2012
It's frankly a joke. Along with the Daily Star, Daily Express and Mirror. All are utter rags that have no source citation, peddle rumour and urban legends. The Daily Mail has had hundreds of stories saying that [insert thing here] causes cancer, with no scientific verification, ran a story for years that Birminghan council was trying to actually ban christmas being celebrated with NO evidence whatsoever (the infamous 'winterval' tale). Try to Telgraph, Times, Guardian or Independent. They're all very varied politically, but at least they all share similar journalistic standards. The Mail is tat.
Reply
:icontole-dragoon:
Tole-Dragoon Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2012
Say, what's your opinion on distributism, BlameThe1st?
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Depends on what that is.
Reply
:icontole-dragoon:
Tole-Dragoon Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2012
Chesterton's ideology. It's kinda like a mix between Christian democracy, guild (non-marxist) socialism and libertarianism.

It's against big government and big corporations. The main difference with capitalism and marxist socialism is that it argues that the means of production should be spread among the people, instead of being centralised under the state (marxist socialism) or a few large businesses/rich people (laissez-faire capitalism). The main idea is that more people should be able to make a living without depending on the property of others.

([link])
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Never heard of it, but it sounds good to an extent.
Reply
:icononopahnov:
Onopahnov Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2012  Student Filmographer
"This is not an official list of demands. The user "bchang1987" who posted this speaks only for themself, not the movement."
Occupy may be pretty liberal, but this person's a freaking communist. Using their paper as a guide to the movement isn't totally fair. :|
Reply
Add a Comment: