Some quotes relevant to the Occupy movement

[Craig234]

These are one person, from the 'progressive' movement:

The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.

Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.

The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either.

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests, which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by a mob. There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with "the money touch," but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.

These are the quotes of a 'progressive' leader. They could easily be from a progressive leader about the Occupy movement.

A century ago, the issues of the corruption of government by corrupted wealth and its harms to society was an issue as well. There was the 'progressive era' in politics.

All of the quotes above are from Teddy Roosevelt, who ran against his Republican Party because it had become to beholden to wealth, as a progressive. And lost.

But it says a lot how the issues are so similar. Which side are readers on, the people or the corrupt wealthy? We have a lot of people here foolishly on the wrong side.

Look at that last quote - it describes the Republican front-runners to a tee, "glorified pawnbrokers", Herman Cain, Mitt Romeny, also Donald Trump who still influences Rick Perry.

 

[soulcougher73]

:thumbsup: Good quotes. I agree.

 

[superccs]

Nice post.

 

[CPA]

Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.

We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.


Absolutely sickening. So, what is it? You want control or not? What is misconduct? Are wage levels a sign of misconduct? And how are these master progressive economists going to secure "good wages" and "reasonable prices"? Can you say hyper-inflation?

You got to love progressive's take on economy: "yes, you can come in, put up the capital, take the risk, put in the years and turmoil to get your company up an running. We will wait until that point we feel you are making too much money - whatever that is - and then come in and tell you how things should be done. Okay?"

 

[HendrixFan]

Absolutely sickening. So, what is it? You want control or not?

He wants control, where does he say he doesn't? "We wish to control..." The only thing he says that I can assume you took as him not wanting control was "Our aim is not to do away with corporations..." but that is certainly not him saying he doesn't want control. He just doesn't want to eliminate them.

What is misconduct? Are wage levels a sign of misconduct? And how are these master progressive economists going to secure "good wages" and "reasonable prices"? Can you say hyper-inflation?

Corporations have such a massive size that standard economic principles no longer apply to them. We have oligopolies in virtually every marketplace. With that backdrop, corporations can put the screws to the country without any recourse, except of course government putting restrictions in place.

If you haven't been paying attention these last few decades prices of most all goods have been dropping. Wages have been stagnant or dropping for most during that same time period. Corporate profits are up, but more significantly, wealth at the top has gone up. Instead of paying good wages to the workers, corporations are top heavy in their payouts. The ultra wealthy are getting the majority of the "wages", even if they aren't strictly wages and they are put in vehicles that get lower tax rates via capital gains.

Simply put, restoring a strong middle class is a good thing for society. If the corporations wish to be members of the society they should look towards that common goal. They don't have to pay more money out to labor, just restructure which part of labor gets what. A top heavy society (banana republic) is not a good thing for long term prosperity.

You got to love progressive's take on economy: "yes, you can come in, put up the capital, take the risk, put in the years and turmoil to get your company up an running. We will wait until that point we feel you are making too much money - whatever that is - and then come in and tell you how things should be done. Okay?"

No, we tell them how things should be done from the start. We the people were the ones who granted corporations life to begin with, and we can revoke it at any time (even if they haven't exercised that power). Corporations exist because of us, not the other way around. I simply don't understand your notion of subservience to a corporate power.

 

[BoberFett]

No, we tell them how things should be done from the start. We the people were the ones who granted corporations life to begin with, and we can revoke it at any time (even if they haven't exercised that power). Corporations exist because of us, not the other way around. I simply don't understand your notion of subservience to a corporate power.

You do realize that no corporation starts out with billions in revenue, don't you?

Corporations start in garages and home offices. You want to make sure no small business ever gets off the ground? Keep regulating them into oblivion. The existing power structure thanks you for your cooperation. Massive corporations don't want competition from new businesses, so keep on adding regulations. Regulation to big business is like mud to a pig.

 

[spidey07]

Tell me again, with a straight face, that they don't want communism. Go ahead, need a good laugh.

So in his mind, it's perfectly acceptable to say a business must charge no more than X for a product and must pay Y to workers. The difference between the two is up to the ones who "control" business (government). He's falling hook line and sinker for marxism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Marxism views the socialist system as being prepared by the historical development of capitalism. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability [1]). In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through worker's revolution. Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.

 

[HendrixFan]

You do realize that no corporation starts out with billions in revenue, don't you?

Corporations start in garages and home offices. You want to make sure no small business ever gets off the ground? Keep regulating them into oblivion. The existing power structure thanks you for your cooperation. Massive corporations don't want competition from new businesses, so keep on adding regulations. Regulation to big business is like mud to a pig.

Do you know why there are corporate charters to begin with? Because having them enhances society. That is it, that is the only reason. There is a strong economic benefit to having them.

Do you know why there are regulations? Because having them enhances society.

One isn't more important than the other outright, just to varying degrees depending on many factors. To toss one or the other aside completely is stunningly moronic.

 

[HendrixFan]

Tell me again, with a straight face, that they don't want communism. Go ahead, need a good laugh.

So in his mind, it's perfectly acceptable to say a business must charge no more than X for a product and must pay Y to workers. The difference between the two is up to the ones who "control" business (government). He's falling hook line and sinker for marxism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Marxism is the establishment of capitalism. TR is talking about a mixed economy, capitalism with government oversight. We already have that going on right now, and in alot of way China is more capitalist than we are. Mixed economies tend to perform the best.

I think you are completely missing the boat on "control". TR wasn't saying anywhere that the government should absorb industry. If you can find any substance to that claim, either in the quotes provided or anywhere else, please do so. Until you can, please stop spewing your unsupported filth.

 

[Lithium381]

the only way to ensure a high wage, but low prices is to NOT HAVE A BOTTOM LINE.... like how our government works. if there is no pesky "profit margin" to worry about then you can have these things, but that sounds an awful lot like *gasp* communism!

 

[a777pilot]

Anyone:

Please, inform the members of this site where communism has been successful as a model for governance.

 

[HendrixFan]

Anyone:

Please, inform the members of this site where communism has been successful as a model for governance.

Communism is an economic model.

 

[HendrixFan]

the only way to ensure a high wage, but low prices is to NOT HAVE A BOTTOM LINE.... like how our government works. if there is no pesky "profit margin" to worry about then you can have these things, but that sounds an awful lot like *gasp* communism!

From a few posts above, and it answers your concern:

If you haven't been paying attention these last few decades prices of most all goods have been dropping. Wages have been stagnant or dropping for most during that same time period. Corporate profits are up, but more significantly, wealth at the top has gone up. Instead of paying good wages to the workers, corporations are top heavy in their payouts. The ultra wealthy are getting the majority of the "wages", even if they aren't strictly wages and they are put in vehicles that get lower tax rates via capital gains.

Simply put, restoring a strong middle class is a good thing for society. If the corporations wish to be members of the society they should look towards that common goal. They don't have to pay more money out to labor, just restructure which part of labor gets what. A top heavy society (banana republic) is not a good thing for long term prosperity.

 

[Throckmorton]

Anyone:

Please, inform the members of this site where communism has been successful as a model for governance.

Anyone:

Please, inform the members of this site where capitalism has been successful as a model for governance.

 

[monovillage]

I like these other quotes by Theodore Roosevelt:

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.

Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.

Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage.

Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.

I am only an average man but, by George, I work harder at it than the average man.

I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate; and while the debate goes on, the canal does also.

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/theodore_roosevelt.html

 

[brencat]

From a few posts above, and it answers your concern:

And I have yet to see a single Democratic tax proposal that targets capital gains taxes primarily as the source for correcting some of the inequality in which they speak. Why the continuous focus on 250-thousandaires and W2 income when raising the capital gains tax will target the top 0.1% that supposedly has all the wealth?

Oh right... because the wealthy donors to the Dems are the same kind that donate to the Repubs... namely, the investor class -- that gets the majority of their income from investments.

This is a joke. Don't tell me Dems good, Repubs bad. I constantly hear "at the least some of the Dems TRY to help the middle class, while none of the Repubs even give a sh*t." Put a serious proposal on the table that targets your sacred cow donors and maybe I'll take you seriously. And intent doesn't count by the way. Only results matter.

Until then, leave me alone. I'm trying to get rich.

 

[soulcougher73]

So much fail from the usual suspects in this thread. Way to not understand the quotes or how they relate to the real world.

WTS Blinders $1

 

[soulcougher73]

And I have yet to see a single Democratic tax proposal that targets capital gains taxes primarily as the source for correcting some of the inequality in which they speak. Why the continuous focus on 250-thousandaires and W2 income when raising the capital gains tax will target the top 0.1% that supposedly has all the wealth?

Oh right... because the wealthy donors to the Dems are the same kind that donate to the Repubs... namely, the investor class -- that gets the majority of their income from investments.

This is a joke. Don't tell me Dems good, Repubs bad. I constantly hear "at the least some of the Dems TRY to help the middle class, while none of the Repubs even give a sh*t." Put a serious proposal on the table that targets your sacred cow donors and maybe I'll take you seriously. And intent doesn't count by the way. Only results matter.

Until then, leave me alone. I'm trying to get rich.

So get off the forums and get to work lazy bum.

 

[xj0hnx]

And I have yet to see a single Democratic tax proposal that targets capital gains taxes primarily as the source for correcting some of the inequality in which they speak. Why the continuous focus on 250-thousandaires and W2 income when raising the capital gains tax will target the top 0.1% that supposedly has all the wealth?

Oh right... because the wealthy donors to the Dems are the same kind that donate to the Repubs... namely, the investor class -- that gets the majority of their income from investments.

This is a joke. Don't tell me Dems good, Repubs bad. I constantly hear "at the least some of the Dems TRY to help the middle class, while none of the Repubs even give a sh*t." Put a serious proposal on the table that targets your sacred cow donors and maybe I'll take you seriously. And intent doesn't count by the way. Only results matter.

Until then, leave me alone. I'm trying to get rich.

Whoop there it is

 

[brencat]

So get off the forums and get to work lazy bum.

Ha! I multitask pretty well

 

[Throckmorton]

Interesting how we never learned in school how leftwing all these old gun-toting, big-game-hunting, wild-west-taming conservatives were.

 

[Broheim]

Marxism is the establishment of capitalism. TR is talking about a mixed economy, capitalism with government oversight. We already have that going on right now, and in alot of way China is more capitalist than we are. Mixed economies tend to perform the best.

I think you are completely missing the boat on "control". TR wasn't saying anywhere that the government should absorb industry. If you can find any substance to that claim, either in the quotes provided or anywhere else, please do so. Until you can, please stop spewing your unsupported filth.

let me get this straight, you want the US to be more like China?

 

[Anarchist420]

Anyone:

Please, inform the members of this site where capitalism has been successful as a model for governance.

Laissez-faire capitalism worked quite well the only time (after Jackson until a few days before Buchanan left office) this country was anywhere close to it. The ones who wanted government intervention were the corporatist Henry Clay Whigs who were National Socialists.

 

[Throckmorton]

Laissez-faire capitalism worked quite well the only time (after Jackson until a few days before Buchanan left office) this country was anywhere close to it. The ones who wanted government intervention were the corporatist Henry Clay Whigs who were National Socialists.

There's nothing free about a market that includes slavery. Or maybe there is, from the slaveowner's perspective.

 

[woolfe9999]

And I have yet to see a single Democratic tax proposal that targets capital gains taxes primarily as the source for correcting some of the inequality in which they speak. Why the continuous focus on 250-thousandaires and W2 income when raising the capital gains tax will target the top 0.1% that supposedly has all the wealth?

I think Obama's proposed Buffett rule implicates capital gains primarily. At least, that is the only feasible way to interpret it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/09/22/obamas-buffett-rule-keep-your-eye-on-capital-gains/