jacee

Ahhh ... backing off now from your 'double dip' nonsense?

Oh dear, that's too bad. I'm afraid we just wouldn't be compatible. But ... do you like protests? Perhaps we could be protest buddies.

Pretty much a non-issue isn't it? Nobody's going to be charged - or even tested - for having drugs (or alcokol) in their system unless they are committing a crime (disorderly conduct, driving impaired, for example, which could be drugs or alcohol). And then they're going to be charged for the offense, not for 'possession' of the drugs in their system, for pete's sake. And a statement from "National Defence and Canadian Forces" is not a statement of the law.

Democracy is more than elections. We do get to try to influence politicians while they are governing as well. They are still accountable to the public, including those who didn't vote, or didn't vote for them. An MP represents all the people in the riding, and a Prime Minister represents all of the people in the country. The elite wealthy have more access to influencing government policy, far beyond their number of votes. For example, whether he likes it or not, Stephen Harper has to answer to some of the Liberal elite, like Paul Desmarais, whom he tried to hide from cameras recently. But you already know this stuff and you are just trying to deflect any criticism of the system as it is. Perhaps you see that as your responsibility (I assure you, it isn't) or just your personal choice, but it's a very narrow, constrained and not very realistic view of democracy. In fact, it sounds like you are trying to make it out to be a hierarchy, an autocracy, where people are just supposed to fall in line, follow orders, and believe what they're told to believe, but that's not democracy. Democracy is based in freedom of expression, freedom of assembly ... you know ... the rights and freedoms here .... We do not have to 'put up and shut up' between elections. But you can if you wish.

Yes, clearly not a good spokesperson ... but he wasn't chosen by the protesters to speak for them.

Yes Bob, we know you are prejudiced against all "Arabs/Muslims" and take any opportunity to display it. Now tell me exactly what is it in Iran's message you disagree with and why? Anybody? Anybody find anything in there that is untrue? Jbg?

Speaking of spin ... They need clear communicators. They will emerge.

Ya right. You're being a little obvious. Sorry to disappoint but I don't have the tax records for review. Wealth hidden from taxation is a criminal matter, but the tax system needs to be investigated too for loopholes and for compliance, and for undue influence by wealthy elites with acce$$ to lawmaker politicians. There is no good reason why the wealthiEST pay the same rate of taxes as those on welfare. And no good reason for corporate subsidies if they are being scooped as profits instead of creating jobs.

Major providers of television news ABC CBS News CNN Fox News Channel MSNBC NBC News Major newspapers include: New York Times Los Angeles Times USA Today The Wall Street Journa Washington Post The Dallas Morning News Reuters is UK based and has reported before. So has WSJ. Major networks (does Fox really count?) and newspapers still pretty silent. I will say that while I generally admire the democracy the protesters have constructed, I think their communications with media need some coordination. It's too easy for media to selectively choose interviewees, edit and reconstruct to make it appear the way they want. Media relations people needed, and will doubtless be found.

Who are the culprits in Canada?I'm not going to speculate on who hides income/wealth f rom taxation, but I think a review of the laws and loopholes is in order. I also think a review of corporate subsidies is in order, and those that have not resulted in any new jobs should be disallowed.

The protesters legal costs may be funded thusly. The protest itself is funded by donations flowing in from around the country and around the world. They have had more food than they need due to people calling in delivery orders for them, $10,000 in one night, for example. They are feeding the homeless too. They have, at one estimate, about $100,000 in donations too, from individual donors. It's a popular protest.

Not surprising after two weeks of people asking where their coverage is ... But I can't see your photo Bonam. Too small. Do you have a link to the report?

What money has already been taxed?The gain?

Ummm ... are you rich?

You've missed some points from earlier in the thread. This isn't about "rich people" in general, but just about the richEST of the rich. The richEST prey on the rest of the rich: The richEST pay much lower rates of taxes than the rest of the rich. The rich may work hard, but the richEST get richer just by not paying as much in taxes as the rest of the rich. And they don't give a damn how hard anybody works. Abd they don't give a damn whether families lose their homes, banks fail, or the ewhole financial system fails and gets bailed out by taxpayers ... because they 'won' ... made megaprofits off the homeless families and then again off the taxpayers and then they made money off the rest of the rich by influencing tax laws so they pay a far lower rate of taxes and sticking the rest of the rich with the tax. bill ... You know the one ... for the bailouts ... your taxpayer money that the richEST pocketed. If you are still in the stage of denial where you think rich folks stick together ... think again because some of the richEST do not 'have your back': They're sticking knives in it.

Not likely, and let me rephrase that ... The lazy richEST 1% don't even pay proportionately as much in taxes as the hard working ordinary rich guy, or the hard working ordinary working guy. On average the lazy richEST guys pay about the same rate of taxes as the "lazy" welfare families. Yup, that's right folks ... Some of the richEST people in Canada pay taxes at welfare rates. But not all of them ... So a few of the richest of the richest, who control the halls of power, or at least tax policy, have used that power only for their own benefit. It benefits no other rich people but themselves. And then there is untaxed wealth stashed offshore ... And then there is corporate welfare ... And then there is the power to control trading laws and policies that allowed (eg) GoldmanSachs to reap megaprofits 'hedging' against their own products that they first sold off to suckers. That's considered smart on Wall Street. It's a money issue, but mostly a power issue. Subprime mortgages that could have been renegotiated to minimize losses and keep people in their homes, were instead foreclosed so that those 'in the know' - ie, pulling the strings - could reap megaprofits betting that the mortgages would fail. And they did fail, and banks with them but for taxpayer bailouts. So (eg) GoldmanSachs and its investors made money on the subprime mortgages twice, and the second time it was the taxpayers who paid the rich people, the same people who manipulated the system for personal benefit, without regard for the entire financial system nor for the entire country of people impacted. And that's considered 'smart' on Wall Street. There's a relative few ultrarich predators without human values controlling lawmakers and laws and policies for their own personal benefit only, benefits like tax rates not even shared by others in the same very high income levels. Sociopathic predators without conscience are 'smart' ... and dangerous. We let THEM control politicians to set tax policies for themselves? Enough.

Nobody's talking about that. It doesn't happen.

With the war against unions, it's obvious that the employing class has forgotten that. However, the reality is that labour is cheaper elsewhere and that's where the mega-corps have gone, and the mega-investors reap the mega-profits of paying poverty wages, and then pay taxes at the same rate as unemployed low income people here. In other words, they get mega-rich off poverty and then plead poverty.

What is even more significant is that the mainstream media are not reporting on the protest. The uber-rich have shut them down, presumeably because they are scared of possible effects on the stock markets and banding together to try to prevent the movement from growing ... but it is growing and spreading anyway.

I'm afraid Michael's post was misleading. Nobody is guaranteed cable. It is specifically not included in welfare calculations.I myself choose not to have cable. A few over-the-air major network channels is enough for me, and I can choose what movies I watch.

You invalidate your own argument by misrepresenting my position.Nobody said "all" the wealth of the uber-rich should be "confiscated", nor that they should "labor (sic) in chain gangs". What I do believe is that the uber-rich should at least pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as the 'ordinarily wealthy'. Because they don't, and they don't pay as much (proportionately) as the working/middle class either. Instead, the very wealthiEST pay a similar or smaller proportion of their income in taxes as the lowest income Canadians.

It's interesting how the media keep referring to the protest as "leaderless", like they can't comprehend a democratic model that doesn't select leader/decision-makers. However, the participant democracy practiced by the protesters does not give decision-making powers away to anyone: All issues are raised by anyone at the assemblies, and decisions are voted on by everyone. While they may at some point select some spokespeople, these people would only do communications from and to the General Assembly. They would not have the power to make decisions. Participant, or participatory democracy is the oldest form of North American democracy, practiced by the Haudenosaunee Six Nations (Iroquois) Confederacy for nearly a thousand years, and detailed in their 'Great Law'. Some links: http://greenparty.ca/party/values/participatory-democracy http://www.hfienberg.com/poltheory/participate.html http://www.watsoninstitute.org/project_detail.cfm?id=113 Six Nations http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/#DtIC

Lots of interest in Wall Street occupation here, from both 'sides'. Can we continue the discussion here Rocky?

From new thread here Since many of us are following this, can we try to keep it in this thread please?