OWS Protesters May Demand "Robin Hood" Tax
The magazine that sparked the protests calls for a 1-percent levy on financial transactions.
By Will Oremus | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011, at 5:01 PM ET
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/19/robin_hood_tax_adbusters_proposes_demand_for_ows_march_on_oct_29.html
"On October 29, on the eve of the G20 Leaders Summit in France, let's the people of the world rise up and demand that our G20 leaders immediately impose a 1% #ROBINHOOD tax on all financial transactions and currency trades. Let's send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3-trillion easy money that's sloshing around the global casino each day – enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world. "
The Teahadists never came up with any logical ideas....
I can see a fee to cover the cost of the tax on the horizon.
OWS is the return on our investment in education.
Sad!
Quote from: Gaspar on October 20, 2011, 07:44:47 AM
OWS is the return on our investment in education.
Sad!
Really? People are using their 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble (for the most part) and you call it sad?
Even I didn't call it that when it was the TP was doing it. I question their motives and beliefs, but would never call it sad. I did however question a member during one of their gatherings brandishing a weapon near the White House.
How predictable coming from you. That's what is truly sad.
Quote from: Hoss on October 20, 2011, 08:27:17 AM
Really? People are using their 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble (for the most part) and you call it sad?
Even I didn't call it that when it was the TP was doing it. I question their motives and beliefs, but would never call it sad. I did however question a member during one of their gatherings brandishing a weapon near the White House.
How predictable coming from you. That's what is truly sad.
No, I love the fact that they are protesting. I support that 100%. I am sad that they are unable to articulate or understand why they are protesting.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 20, 2011, 08:42:34 AM
No, I love the fact that they are protesting. I support that 100%. I am sad that they are unable to articulate or understand why they are protesting.
What is even sadder is the fact that the tea baggers can only articulate the lies they have caught on Fox for lo these many years. Things like smaller government is good (because it turns the corporations loose to rape and pillage,... er, uh... to create jobs), lower taxes will always fix every problem (like our roads and bridges and water/sewer systems...), and the we can continue to go in debt spending trillions for the wrong war and more trillions to bail out insurance/banks with no adverse effects to the economy.
THAT is truly sad!
Quote from: Gaspar on October 20, 2011, 08:42:34 AM
No, I love the fact that they are protesting. I support that 100%. I am sad that they are unable to articulate or understand why they are protesting.
Once again. Attributing the worst motives to people you disagree with.
I can't fathom why even the relative morons in the MSM are able to understand the core issues that the Occupy movement is addressing and you can't (or won't). But really, if you want to see it as a nationwide tantrum, you do so to your detriment. Just like the Tea Party, OWS in some form is here to stay, and is going to affecting electoral politics from here on out. I wasn't sure at first, but I think it's now pretty clear that it's not going away any time soon.
Quote from: we vs us on October 20, 2011, 08:58:21 AM
Once again. Attributing the worst motives to people you disagree with.
I can't fathom why even the relative morons in the MSM are able to understand the core issues that the Occupy movement is addressing and you can't (or won't). But really, if you want to see it as a nationwide tantrum, you do so to your detriment. Just like the Tea Party, OWS in some form is here to stay, and is going to affecting electoral politics from here on out. I wasn't sure at first, but I think it's now pretty clear that it's not going away any time soon.
Hopefully it translates into more people voting.
In re: Robin Hood Tax: it's not clear what a "financial transaction" is. Currency trades I understand but a financial transaction could be anything from a debit card swipe to a savings account transfer or 1000 security trades timed to the microsecond by algorithm. I'm all for adding a little more disincentive to some of the more exotic financial instruments out there, but not to the basic stuff that nontrading Americans need on a day to day basis.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 20, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
Hopefully it translates into more people voting.
Agreed, and I think it will.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 20, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
Hopefully it translates into more people voting.
Not those being disenfranchised by the GOP: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/19/347880/south-carolina-voter-id-law-violates-voting-rights-act/
"Democrats say it's no coincidence that Republicans renewed their disenfranchisement efforts after Barack Obama was elected president. "In 2008, we had too many black folk, too many brown folk, too many poor folk voting," said South Carolina state Representative David J. Mack III. "They (Republicans) can't have that in 2012."
Quote from: Gaspar on October 20, 2011, 08:42:34 AM
No, I love the fact that they are protesting. I support that 100%. I am sad that they are unable to articulate or understand why they are protesting.
In other words, you're "sad" that the tools of the very people they are protesting claim not to get it.
I very much despise the style of this video, but its content summarizes the issue quite well:
Whether you consider it a compelling narrative or not, isn't terribly important. Other people clearly do.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 20, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
Hopefully it translates into more people voting.
Not likely. These are students, elderly, unsophisticates, free spirits. They probably don't have DL's, Visas or other forms of ID that authorities are increasingly requiring at the insistence of conservatives who are sure the whole country is cheating them out of total, unquestioning, domination. Talk about sad. You don't drive? You don't get to vote. You don't travel? No vote. You don't know how to get an ID or are suspect of your government's motives in requiring one? NO VOTE FOR YOU!
Quote from: AquaMan on October 20, 2011, 10:09:05 AM
You don't drive? You don't get to vote.
Does Oklahoma not still have the non-driver's driver's licence for ID purposes?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 10:14:46 AM
Does Oklahoma not still have the non-driver's driver's licence for ID purposes?
Aside from having to pay for those ID's it doesn't matter here. We're not exactly a swing state.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 10:14:46 AM
Does Oklahoma not still have the non-driver's driver's licence for ID purposes?
Yes. Instead of having a blue background, it has a red one.
I looked it up.
http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/okid.htm
Or this:
http://www.ok.gov/elections/faqs.html#c247
What can I show for proof of identity?
You may show any document issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized tribal government if it includes your name, a photograph of you, and an expiration date that is later than the election in which you are voting. For example, the following documents meet these requirements:
Oklahoma driver license
Oklahoma Identification Card
United States passport
United States military identification
The law provides only two exceptions to these requirements:
1. An Oklahoma Identification Card issued to a person who is 65 years old or older is valid as proof of identity for voting even though it does not have an expiration date.
2. The Voter Identification Card issued by the County Election Board is valid as proof of identity even though it does not include a photograph or an expiration date. The law also requires that your name on your proof of identity must match your name in the Precinct Registry.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 10:14:46 AM
Does Oklahoma not still have the non-driver's driver's licence for ID purposes?
That makes some assumptions. When the elderly or infirm decide, or their family decides for them, not to drive, they aren't aware that failing to renew or change their license means they can't vote. The two have never been connected. Lots of college students in the south don't drive and don't obtain drivers licenses. I think I heard yesterday that some 650,000 people across the south don't have DL's. Most are students or elderly. Lots of rural people find no need for a DL and have voted for years since they are recognizable.
Then there are those who fear their government is too intrusive and suspect the motives in requiring a DL. They already have a SS# which in spite of its declaration is still used as ID for everything, except voting. They may have evaded their taxes, are wanted on warrants or fear scam voting booths set up to catch them. Maybe they don't deserve the privilege but...there it is.
Then there are those who simply rely on mass trans, bicycles, their legs and their friends. They aren't aware of changes in voting requirements. The motives of this new round of barriers to voting is pretty obvious thru the South. They don't want Obama back, they don't want what they view as undeserving people voting, and they fear groups like TP's and OWS from upsetting things.
I have no problem with requiring identification. I think it ought to be gradually instituted in stages with lots of public service notice to avoid being seen as unfairly discriminatory. There should also be multiple acceptable forms of identification like OK does.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 10:39:57 AM
Or this:
http://www.ok.gov/elections/faqs.html#c247
What can I show for proof of identity?
You may show any document issued by the United States, the State of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized tribal government if it includes your name, a photograph of you, and an expiration date that is later than the election in which you are voting. For example, the following documents meet these requirements:
Oklahoma driver license
Oklahoma Identification Card
United States passport
United States military identification
The law provides only two exceptions to these requirements:
1. An Oklahoma Identification Card issued to a person who is 65 years old or older is valid as proof of identity for voting even though it does not have an expiration date.
2. The Voter Identification Card issued by the County Election Board is valid as proof of identity even though it does not include a photograph or an expiration date. The law also requires that your name on your proof of identity must match your name in the Precinct Registry.
That's Oklahoma though. What's this have to do with national elections? Nationally, it makes no difference how we vote here.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 20, 2011, 10:45:59 AM
I have no problem with requiring identification. I think it ought to be gradually instituted in stages with lots of public service notice to avoid being seen as unfairly discriminatory. There should also be multiple acceptable forms of identification like OK does.
How long is gradual and how many steps? I thought the attention the media gave it in Oklahoma was more than adequate. I did not pay too much attention to other states.
Quote from: Townsend on October 20, 2011, 10:47:22 AM
That's Oklahoma though. What's this have to do with national elections? Nationally, it makes no difference how we vote here.
Oklahoma is participating in a largely nationwide trend, at least in states with Republicans in power. I wouldn't find it so ridiculous if the law made an exception for people personally known to the poll workers. That one facet provides me a pretty strong indication there's an ulterior motive involved. And the states that don't let you use your voter registration card? Sick, and not in the sense the kids use.
Quote from: Townsend on October 20, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Aside from having to pay for those ID's...
Would you consider the cost of getting to a registration office, the price of a postage stamp etc a poll tax?
Quote from: nathanm on October 20, 2011, 11:14:06 AM
And the states that don't let you use your voter registration card? Sick, and not in the sense the kids use.
I'll agree with that.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Would you consider the cost of getting to a registration office, the price of a postage stamp etc a poll tax?
Every time you make something harder to do...
Quote from: Townsend on October 20, 2011, 11:18:52 AM
Every time you make something harder to do...
What about the fact that you have to go to the poll to vote? Talk about hard to do. Want to vote at home? Need the state/city to provide you with a computer and internet connection free of charge to vote. I guess you and I draw the line in different places.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 11:22:57 AM
What about the fact that you have to go to the poll to vote? Talk about hard to do. Want to vote at home? Need the state/city to provide you with a computer and internet connection free of charge to vote. I guess you and I draw the line in different places.
Absentee ballot. ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 11:13:09 AM
How long is gradual and how many steps? I thought the attention the media gave it in Oklahoma was more than adequate. I did not pay too much attention to other states.
At least as much attention as we paid to seat belt laws, smoking restrictions, water conservation, domestic violence, etc. Billboards, public service announcements, public relations through organizations, churches and the fair. You are a college graduate who is politically savvy and pretty well informed. You would be surprised at how many people don't subcribe to a newspaper, watch the local news or follow anything but their religion, their sports and their talk radio. I spoke to the lady at our voter precinct this last vote who told me that several people had been denied a ballot and sent home for identification even though they recognized them. Of course they were angry.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 20, 2011, 11:22:57 AM
What about the fact that you have to go to the poll to vote? Talk about hard to do.
What about it? That's a new step everyone has to take too? I said "harder" not "the same".
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 19, 2011, 09:01:06 PM
OWS Protesters May Demand "Robin Hood" Tax
The magazine that sparked the protests calls for a 1-percent levy on financial transactions.
By Will Oremus | Posted Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011, at 5:01 PM ET
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/19/robin_hood_tax_adbusters_proposes_demand_for_ows_march_on_oct_29.html
"On October 29, on the eve of the G20 Leaders Summit in France, let's the people of the world rise up and demand that our G20 leaders immediately impose a 1% #ROBINHOOD tax on all financial transactions and currency trades. Let's send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3-trillion easy money that's sloshing around the global casino each day – enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world. "
The Teahadists never came up with any logical ideas....
Did Robin Hood randomly take money from rich just because they were rich? I thought Robin Hood took only from the government which it had wrongfully/excessively seized. I don't remember.
At this point in the movement I don't think you'll find much specificity. People are just pissed and grabbing at whatever seems relevant regardless of the logic. Like presidential candidates.
Unless you meant the Robin Hood in tights....
Quote from: guido911 on October 20, 2011, 01:09:24 PM
Did Robin Hood randomly take money from rich just because they were rich? I thought Robin Hood took only from the government which it had wrongfully/excessively seized. I don't remember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood
He had a variety of different relationships (depending on the tale and depending on the era) with "the government," which really meant "the king." In some tales he was a royal antagonist, in some he supported the absent King Richard against his usurper brother, and mostly he was pitted against the Sherriff of Nottingham. You can read whatever you want into the tales, I guess, but the tag line "stole from the rich to give to the poor" is the operative phrase here.
Quote from: AquaMan on October 20, 2011, 01:16:54 PM
At this point in the movement I don't think you'll find much specificity. People are just pissed and grabbing at whatever seems relevant regardless of the logic. Like presidential candidates.
Unless you meant the Robin Hood in tights....
I did mean Men in Tights.
Quote from: we vs us on October 20, 2011, 01:22:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood
He had a variety of different relationships (depending on the tale and depending on the era) with "the government," which really meant "the king." In some tales he was a royal antagonist, in some he supported the absent King Richard against his usurper brother, and mostly he was pitted against the Sherriff of Nottingham. You can read whatever you want into the tales, I guess, but the tag line "stole from the rich to give to the poor" is the operative phrase here.
I read the wiki article before I posted what I did. From what I gathered, it was Hood vs. Government, not Hood vs. Random Rich guy. The latter is what hippies want--something for nothing.
I assert they are very much like the hippies from 1968. It wasn't that they wanted something for nothing as much as they wanted things to change and the war to end. I remember Nixon met with groups of young people (who looked like hippies though we all did) and plaintively asked them, "What is it you want?"
Quote from: guido911 on October 20, 2011, 01:28:57 PM
I read the wiki article before I posted what I did. From what I gathered, it was Hood vs. Government, not Hood vs. Random Rich guy. The latter is what hippies want--something for nothing.
If you're calling the OWS folks hippies, you're about two weeks behind on the news. Seriously, though, a much larger theme is getting money out of politics. That's one of the few things almost everybody involved agrees on.
Quote from: nathanm on October 20, 2011, 01:50:49 PM
If you're calling the OWS folks hippies, you're about two weeks behind on the news. Seriously, though, a much larger theme is getting money out of politics. That's one of the few things almost everybody involved agrees on.
Are you suggesting campaign finance reform?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTd4YICYZEIL0YQS4YPYniU27d4UTloCNbzc2xLQx1r3363a5u0CdQ2Prdvdg)
Quote from: nathanm on October 20, 2011, 01:50:49 PM
If you're calling the OWS folks hippies, you're about two weeks behind on the news. Seriously, though, a much larger theme is getting money out of politics. That's one of the few things almost everybody involved agrees on.
Here's a couple of folks I would call hippies:
I saw another video where I guy wants the 5th Amendment to be ratified or something.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 20, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
Are you suggesting campaign finance reform?
Were it Constitutionally possible, yes. Since it's not, a Constitutional amendment to make it possible would be fantastic. I thought this wasn't at all controversial.
Quote from: guido911 on October 20, 2011, 02:15:31 PM
Here's a couple of folks I would call hippies:
"Let me tell you something about hippies. Hippies didn't export anyone's jobs, hippies didn't lie us into an immoral war, hippies didn't conspire to steal anyone's pension funds, hippies didn't order anyone tortured, hippies didn't steal so much that it crashed the economy of the entire world, and hippies don't go on national tv and spew nonsense and propaganda for a very nice living." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/19/1028029/--OWS:-Let-Me-Tell-You-Wall-Street-Asshats-a-Little-Something-About-Hippies-?via=siderec
HIPPIE = Happy Intelligent People Pursuing Infinite Enlightment
The culture war turns....
Quote from: AquaMan on October 20, 2011, 10:09:05 AM
Not likely. These are students, elderly, unsophisticates, free spirits. They probably don't have DL's, Visas or other forms of ID that authorities are increasingly requiring at the insistence of conservatives who are sure the whole country is cheating them out of total, unquestioning, domination. Talk about sad. You don't drive? You don't get to vote. You don't travel? No vote. You don't know how to get an ID or are suspect of your government's motives in requiring one? NO VOTE FOR YOU!
I fail to see the hardship in a little responsibility. These people would need some sort of ID to register for Social Security, Medicaid, or welfare, or to even cash a check.
Aside from that, do you want people who are not qualified to vote like non-citizens or under-aged kids?
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 20, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
"Let me tell you something about hippies. Hippies didn't export anyone's jobs, hippies didn't lie us into an immoral war, hippies didn't conspire to steal anyone's pension funds, hippies didn't order anyone tortured, hippies didn't steal so much that it crashed the economy of the entire world, and hippies don't go on national tv and spew nonsense and propaganda for a very nice living." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/19/1028029/--OWS:-Let-Me-Tell-You-Wall-Street-Asshats-a-Little-Something-About-Hippies-?via=siderec
HIPPIE = Happy Intelligent People Pursuing Infinite Enlightment
The culture war turns....
Your linking to dailykos, slate, and other leftwing sites with the idea you are to be taken seriously is embarrassing. Also, this dumb story about hippies not lying us into war or authorized torture has NOTHING to do with wall street. That has to do with government, which these hippie morons are incapable of grasping.
Quote from: guido911 on October 20, 2011, 03:55:55 PM
Your linking to dailykos, slate, and other leftwing sites with the idea you are to be taken seriously is embarrassing.
Ha. That is all.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
I fail to see the hardship in a little responsibility. These people would need some sort of ID to register for Social Security, Medicaid, or welfare, or to even cash a check.
Aside from that, do you want people who are not qualified to vote like non-citizens or under-aged kids?
Conan, over 650,000 people across the south don't have DL's. Mostly students and the elderly. They rely on cash, barter, churches and family to get by. Do you think the government ought to force them to get an ID, a specific ID in the form of a DL, a Visa or a specific photo ID? That seems too big brother for me. BTW, SS and Welfare rely on birth certificates for identification.
Speaking of hardship, is it too much to ask that those same governments simply recognize existing voter registration cards and other means of identification besides DL's? Somehow, those governments seem to collect water bills, real estate taxes, trash fees etc. without ever having to see one of those specific ID's.
Like I said, I have no problem with voters needing some sort of ID even if it is just facial recognition by the local registrar. The hardships created by these new laws are greater than the risk of potential voter fraud. This latest poll barrier is not about limiting the amount of cheating voters. Its about surreptitiously raising the bar on who can vote.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
I fail to see the hardship in a little responsibility. These people would need some sort of ID to register for Social Security, Medicaid, or welfare, or to even cash a check.
Aside from that, do you want people who are not qualified to vote like non-citizens or under-aged kids?
FAIL....miserably. It helps your causes to cut the poor and the down and out from your competitors support. What was wrong with the way we structured our voting democracy for the past century? Does the sudden need for an id result from a sudden and new fear of voter fraud? Check those ballot boxes and chads....
+1 Aquaman!
Quote from: AquaMan on October 20, 2011, 04:10:20 PM
Conan, over 650,000 people across the south don't have DL's. Mostly students and the elderly. They rely on cash, barter, churches and family to get by. Do you think the government ought to force them to get an ID, a specific ID in the form of a DL, a Visa or a specific photo ID? That seems too big brother for me. BTW, SS and Welfare rely on birth certificates for identification.
Speaking of hardship, is it too much to ask that those same governments simply recognize existing voter registration cards and other means of identification besides DL's? Somehow, those governments seem to collect water bills, real estate taxes, trash fees etc. without ever having to see one of those specific ID's.
Like I said, I have no problem with voters needing some sort of ID even if it is just facial recognition by the local registrar. The hardships created by these new laws are greater than the risk of potential voter fraud. This latest poll barrier is not about limiting the amount of cheating voters. Its about surreptitiously raising the bar on who can vote.
If the government is going to force them to use a photo ID to vote, then the ID process should be free, I don't have a problem with that. I simply don't see it as any more a hardship to go down to the DMV to get an ID than it is to go to the polls.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2011, 04:15:38 PM
If the government is going to force them to use a photo ID to vote, then the ID process should be free, I don't have a problem with that. I simply don't see it as any more a hardship to go down to the DMV to get an ID than it is to go to the polls.
That's because you are not old, poor, or in poor health. Again, what was wrong with our voting democracy all these years?
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 20, 2011, 04:19:04 PM
That's because you are not old, poor, or in poor health. Again, what was wrong with our voting democracy all these years?
Then it would be just as difficult for them to go vote, yes?.
With charges of voter fraud coming from both parties in virtually every major election nowadaze, I think it's become more essential for people to show an ID. Our voting democracy is changing...
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 20, 2011, 04:19:04 PM
That's because you are not old, poor, or in poor health. Again, what was wrong with our voting democracy all these years?
How many threads are out about voter id? The Supremes have settled it. Move on.
Quote from: guido911 on October 20, 2011, 04:25:23 PM
How many threads are out about voter id? The Supremes have settled it. Move on.
You got the Supreme majority in your corner. That doesn't make it right....right wing but not right.
This too can be changed along with the way Congress is bought off despite Clarence Thomass and his ilk.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
Then it would be just as difficult for them to go vote, yes?.
With charges of voter fraud coming from both parties in virtually every major election nowadaze, I think it's become more essential for people to show an ID. Our voting democracy is changing...
In what way? You Jim Crowe lovers know what you're after here.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 20, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
You got the Supreme majority in your corner. That doesn't make it right....right wing but not right.
This too can be changed along with the way Congress is bought off despite Clarence Thomas and his ilk.
Who knew Justice Stevens, one of the six that voted in the majority, was a right winger? Maybe it was the three left wingers that got it WRONG. Do you even try to think before you toss up these softballs?
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 20, 2011, 04:29:51 PM
In what way? You Jim Crowe lovers know what you're after here.
How did it go from the "old, poor, or in poor health" as your pitiful perceived reason why voter ID sucks to Jim Crow? Man, I guess now everyone is getting bent over by the onerous task of obtaining an ID.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
With charges of voter fraud coming from both parties in virtually every major election nowadaze, I think it's become more essential for people to show an ID. Our voting democracy is changing...
There have always been charges of fraud after every election. The allegations are almost never found to be true.
If you're concerned about the sanctity of the vote, you'd be more effective in outlawing electronic voting machines that do more than print out a ballot equivalent to the paper one. They've all been repeatedly proven insecure, despite the protestations of their manufacturers.