Find job openings and jobs available now.

Occupy Philadelphia + Commentary

by tom44 on July 17, 2012

200 Companies Hiring Home Workers Now – Click Here
No Experience Necessary Shaun’s post: Shaun’s blog: Philadelphia Jobs with Justice:
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Finalist in MTC’s Job Corps Video Competition
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Take back your privacy!

Are you currently Unemployed?
Learn insider tips to landing a Federal Job

How to Land a Top-Paying Federal Job

Learn 4 Tips To Find Entry Level Jobs – Click Here

Share Button

27 thoughts on “Occupy Philadelphia + Commentary

  1. SlappyTheMoron says:

    You have to pick a leader and or reps for each issue or whatever to speak for the whole. I am a supporter of the movement. I won’t fight a battle that is lost before it starts.? Any city that has an occupy in it’s town not big enough to over fill it’s jails and/or stop it’s production will be contained by it’s police.

  2. americant001 says:

    That Shepard guy is on the? level.

  3. HonestDiscussioner says:

    Under my policy, NO other funding would be allowed. Not even the Candidate’s personal fund. A rich man or woman should have no advantage over a poor man or woman. Their wealth says nothing about their ideas, policies, and ability to lead. The only thing a lobbyist could do is talk to the candidate and try to convince them with an argument. No money may be? exchanged, no dinners bought.

  4. MardasMan says:

    I’m no expert on US politics, so correct me.
    Your answer is state? funds for politicians instead of private funds, am i getting that right? If yes, than i’m generally for it. I’m german, and we have a party system with state funds for parties, who have reached a certain vote percentage in elections. Although we suffer from lobbying too (especially the nuclear power lobby is very unpopular, as it has overthrown voter’s goals), donations are relatively small compared to the US.

  5. HonestDiscussioner says:

    Yes I do. We need public elections. For Presidential elections, anyone who wants to run and can get enough signatures (a low number at that) can run, but they start out at the county level. Everyone who is running in the county has? one debate, and from that there is an election. Then the winners of the county go to the regional debates, then the states, and so on until the general election. Each time you win you get a little money for your campaign, no other funds may be used.

  6. MardasMan says:

    The question stays: How? can you possibly break the power of the rather money- than vote-bound lobbies? I have no concrete answer for it, do you have one?

  7. HonestDiscussioner says:

    Actually,? in my system the incumbent gets a pretty huge advantage. That’s countered by the fact that we’d add in term limits.

  8. TheNakedAtheist says:


    Shortening the cycle seems like it would give an unfair advantage to the incumbent who is already known, but since we’re blaspheming how about we just go with a? parliamentary system.

  9. HonestDiscussioner says:

    I believe we should shorten the election cycle to . . . I know this is? blasphemy . . less than a year!

    In all seriousness, in England the election season is only a month. I think this would fit in just fine. If we instituted something along the lines of the fairness doctrine, but only as it applies to campaign seasons.

    Fox would be utterly ruined. They’d actually have to show both sides!

  10. TheNakedAtheist says:


    On that note a poll by George Washington University found that cable news is the main source of political news for 81% of respondents, and among them Fox was the clear winner, with 42 percent of respondents saying it is their main source. That might be a bigger? problem than the money going directly to candidates.

  11. TheNakedAtheist says:


    Also do you think getting money out of? politics would make a major difference? While politicians need money to run an election what they are actually doing with that money is buying media exposure. I predict if the rich can’t buy the politicians directly they’ll simply invest more in news media, and buy the politician with exposure, positive spin, and endorsements.

  12. TheNakedAtheist says:

    I think we need, in addition to getting money out of politics, a change to the constitution. The representation of states in the senate (2 per state) was not an implementation based on fairness, but essentially as a bride to get the smaller states to go along. It’s ridiculous considering that? legislation requires the support of both houses that Ca. for example with almost than 12% of the population has the same 2 seats in the senate as Ri. with 1/3 of one percent of the population.

  13. HonestDiscussioner says:

    “I just found out that these clowns want the min wage to be? 20 dollars an hour.”

    The minimum minimum wage? Like McDonalds? Or for advanced labor? Could you please cite your source?

    I am fairly certain that there are some jobs that do not deserve $20 an hour. The minimum wage should be the minimum you need to support yourself.

  14. RepresentingTruth says:

    I just found out that these clowns want the min wage to be 20 dollars an hour. If you are OK with that then you need to go back to school and take business math. So the old guy at Walmart saying “Welcome Walmart shoppers” is going to get 20 dollars an hour. This is a joke. I hope people actually think? this through. I sure some will say this is not the group saying it. However if it is would you support such stupidity?

  15. HonestDiscussioner says:

    “If someone started a business in their garage and then got rich, why punish them for it?”

    It’s not punishment. Wealth is power, and with great power comes great responsibility.? Sure, someone who makes a million dollars is paying less than a person who makes 2 million, but the 2 million guy will still have more money than the million dollar guy. The incentive doesn’t go away. Business owners will still make far more than their employees, just not an immense amount more.

  16. HonestDiscussioner says:

    “There would need to be a totally different approach to it.”

    I also agree. While I call it “campaign finance reform”, that doesn’t mean it has to look anything like the campaign finance reform of the past. We’d have to ensure that it was arguments and policy, not money, that decided elections. Joe Schmo’s $350 savings account should not lend him a disadvantage over Bucky Bigbuck’s $10,000,000 savings account. The better policy maker should win, not the? richer person.

  17. RepresentingTruth says:

    I? do not agree with the 1% paying that much. That is just poor economics. If someone started a business in their garage and then got rich, why punish them for it? What incentive does that leave people to create and business and thus create jobs?

  18. RepresentingTruth says:

    “The other issue is campaign finance reform. Politicians are too easily bought, and then politicians are serving the interests of their donors rather than the voters.”
    I agree but we have it already and it does not work. There would need to be a totally different approach? to it.

  19. HonestDiscussioner says:

    What I suggest? is simple: close tax loopholes, and your taxes are based on the percent of wealth you have in comparison to the social burden. Let’s say the government and its programs required $100 to run. If, hypothetically, the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth, then that 1% would be responsible for $90.

    The other issue is campaign finance reform. Politicians are too easily bought, and then politicians are serving the interests of their donors rather than the voters.

  20. HonestDiscussioner says:

    I will PM you a link for the public support.

    I think you miss the point. They aren’t upset with the products being given out so much as the way the power structure is set up. What the people generally want is to be able work a job and support yourself and your family. They don’t want to give money? to wall street in order to bail them out while executives are getting bonuses. They don’t want to be a single injury, even with health care, away from financial ruin. cont.

  21. RepresentingTruth says:

    Maybe I am wrong but where was the public support for it? I know that is what you believe but is that factual? As far as these guys what ever happen to simple supply and demand? If they don’t like these corporations then here is a simple answer. Make their own products and use their own rules. I would love to see if they could survive on their own.? Make an Occupy phone or Occupy computer or an Occupy car. Fair enough? Now they have no excuse.

  22. HonestDiscussioner says:

    Actually, the country wanted something even more detailed than Obamacare. ? When asking for the Public Option, people supported it. Sure, when switching to the “government option” support waned, but when people are described what that means they generally supported it.

    The mantra of “shoved it down our throats” was created to try to get the bill to be postponed or redrawn, at which point it would have been impossible to pass. It was a political trick, nothing more.

  23. RepresentingTruth says:

    I should remind you that the? people did not want Obamacare and it was shoved down our throats. So as far as the job bill please put that in proper perspective. Thanks

  24. HonestDiscussioner says:

    You’re welcome? Steve.

  25. HonestDiscussioner says:

    I’m glad I can? help.

  26. antoinettef22 says:

    this? is good

  27. csparkks says:

    i thought this was a well put together video and? i heard there was real time constraints. shout outs to philly job corps

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Popups Powered By :
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline