FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: hoshyarbaba on November 27, 2011, 08:08:30 pm
-
Are you for or against this movement?
-
Are you for or against this movement?
Yes.
-
In the near future I hope to post a thread about the movement and how it's highly significant to the upcoming election. I support the movement wholeheartedly and I think almost everyone here on FC does too-- I believe it to be somewhat hypocritical if someone speaks against the movement and what it stands for when they're overworked/not working and their wallet is always empty.
-
Call me a hypocrite all you want to and be so informed that you are as mistaken as you can be. Obviously I do not support OWS but they did finally do one thing correct and did a sit in at a government office (where they should have been all along -- and with a name change too). I am no beggar and nobody owes me a damned thing. I am responsible for everything in my life and every aspect of anything my life touches. I earn what I deserve, no more and no less. I don't have to have internet, satellite, cell phone service, trendy fashionable clothing strictly for style, shiny objects, etc...I choose these things even though they sometimes force me to work harder and do extra to afford them. You can take everything from me .. just leave me a knife, rod and reel and some tackle, or a firearm and I will be just as fine for the rest of my days.
Hypocritical? Hell no and neither am I blind or a *bleep*.
-
Call me a hypocrite all you want to and be so informed that you are as mistaken as you can be.
I said "almost". And considering what the next thing I quoted from you says, I'm not mistaken.
I am no beggar and nobody owes me a damned thing.
Granted there are the idiots in the movement (as there are in all), this is not what the OWS is about.
http://occupywallst.org/about/
I earn what I deserve, no more and no less. I don't have to have internet, satellite, cell phone service, trendy fashionable clothing strictly for style, shiny objects, etc...I choose these things even though they sometimes force me to work harder and do extra to afford them.
Good for you! I support this same ideal! But a lot of people don't earn what they truly deserve and are seeing a severe decline in their living standards due to higher-ups purposely making mistakes to screw others over and banking off of it. Since you state that you aren't one of these people, I'm under the impression you do not understand their situation but only your own.
You can take everything from me .. just leave me a knife, rod and reel and some tackle, or a firearm and I will be just as fine for the rest of my days.
This is a trend I keep seeing with people that throw flak at the movement. A major point of it all is wanting improvement in our banking and business systems in order to stop what has already gone down and continues to go down on a daily basis. People of the OWS movement want better order in the current system so they don't have to have everything taken away from them. It's great to see that you've got a survivalist instinct, but (on a broader scale) the movement is just saying "If we get better management in this system, you shoudln't/won't have to go to that level". Peace and prosperity, friend.
-
I said "almost". And considering what the next thing I quoted from you says, I'm not mistaken.
True enough you did at that. I think I was feeling a bit cantankerous (I don't get to use that word often) so pardon my approach if it seemed less than civil.
Granted there are the idiots in the movement (as there are in all), this is not what the OWS is about.
http://occupywallst.org/about/
I have never figured out what they were about and even with the mainstream media and many liberal politicians would would think they would have a clear message. I watch the news daily and from multiple sources and none of them projects any rationale behind the masses of this movement. The name itself implies a focus of its ire and this alone is enough to put me off.
Good for you! I support this same ideal! But a lot of people don't earn what they truly deserve and are seeing a severe decline in their living standards due to higher-ups purposely making mistakes to screw others over and banking off of it. Since you state that you aren't one of these people, I'm under the impression you do not understand their situation but only your own.
Damned you did an edit while I was posting a reply and it threw me off as I thought I was losing my mind (nothing wrong with your editing your post I do the same sometimes it just happened that I was replying to the original and was going to answer a different question of yours but now it isn't here and I am drawing a blank and just typing away with nothing to say for some strange reason -- I always wondered what would happen if someone did a reply while I was doing an edit and I got to tell you it is something strange and is kind of like that Twilight Zone episode with the dog and the goat but only different). Yeah I suppose you are quite right with me not understanding their situation. The concept is 'foreign' to me honestly. If I were not making what I deserved I would change jobs (yeah people will fire back with the 'but, but, but' and I see it is as simple as that, go work the job you get paid what you deserve and if you can't find it then you know you likely already had it). Granter their are people making mistakes and damaging our way of life. These people are in the government though mostly (some on wall street too but their influence is only what you extend to them). The good intentions of our government have placed us in this jeopardy we are in. The social programs and the regulations and the forced lending practices are chief among these. My main problem with OWS is that they want more interference from the government when that is the exact reason we are in the mess we are in.
-
Hahah yeah I did edit it like 2-3 times. I didn't think you were still online, so sorry about that. I'll get back to you tomorrow though. Have a good night!
-
I found it interesting reading your posts. I have to say I am wondering exactly what the Occupy Wall Street is demanding. All I have seen on the news is the moments of sensationalism. I wonder too when no where do I see the clear statements of what they are trying to accomplish. Anything I have heard is vague . . . somewhere in the leadership of this movement is a flaw or it is like arguing with someone that can't tell you what they are really arguing about or want to accomplish. I look forward to reading more of your posts here. I would like to understand what they are standing for and trying to accomplish. The people involved seem passionate but it is a shame there is a loss of clarity in their message whether because the media doesn't report it or the organizers are weak in that area of communication.
-
I'm all for it. I'm just a dumb democrat tho. I don't mean to get off base here and stir something else that should be in a different thread but let me just say, I voted for Pres. Obama and though i am a dem and so is he i don't agree with everything. But, for the most part i agree. I plan on voting for him for 2012. The republican candidates scare the pee out of me.
-
I support Occupy 100%. There can be no change without the people rising up as has been shown historically. It is a movement not only here but all over the world. One man or one government cannot right the wrongs that have been dealt to the citizens through others greed. They arrest the demonstrators but the people who have committed crime and fraud,against not only us as a people but against the whole financial system that we contribute to, are not prosecuted nor held accountable. Our "government " is a shambles and no longer represents us, but the moneyed interests that brought us down in the first place. This is a rather simplistic explanation of what the movement is about.
I am a veteran of the civil rights movement and the war protests and see this as a continuation of those efforts. I can no longer march and demonstrate but if I could I would be there.
If you are really happy with not only your life but the way that makes being homeless, poverty-stricken with no way to support your family who has no health care, then sit on your behind and be critical.
-
I am personally for this movement although i had some problem with them associating it with the occupy black friday. Black Friday was very important to the blue collar americans who are lucky enough to be employed right now
-
I'm all for it. I'm just a dumb democrat tho. I don't mean to get off base here and stir something else that should be in a different thread but let me just say, I voted for Pres. Obama and though i am a dem and so is he i don't agree with everything. But, for the most part i agree. I plan on voting for him for 2012. The republican candidates scare the pee out of me.
What is it about the Republican candidates that scares you? Is it the media's intentional descriptions of them as "conservative", "right wing", "extreme", etc that does so?
Personally I am more frightened with facts such as Obama being an admitted associate and admirer of known terrorists, his use of American resources and coin to launch assaults upon Americans while advocating superior rights to Foreign nationals than American citizens receive, his attempts at micromanaging of American companies and federal departments (really now, NASA having its primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves", using ICE to crackdown on websites selling counterfeit goods and websites illegally streaming copyrighted media?), his natural instincts to be a follower instead of a leader after assuming the job that requires the strongest leadership possible, his contempt with The Constitution, his natural criticism of Americans and praise for Foreign nationals, and the list goes on and on.
-
I support Occupy 100%. There can be no change without the people rising up as has been shown historically. It is a movement not only here but all over the world. One man or one government cannot right the wrongs that have been dealt to the citizens through others greed. They arrest the demonstrators but the people who have committed crime and fraud,against not only us as a people but against the whole financial system that we contribute to, are not prosecuted nor held accountable. Our "government " is a shambles and no longer represents us, but the moneyed interests that brought us down in the first place. This is a rather simplistic explanation of what the movement is about.
I am a veteran of the civil rights movement and the war protests and see this as a continuation of those efforts. I can no longer march and demonstrate but if I could I would be there.
If you are really happy with not only your life but the way that makes being homeless, poverty-stricken with no way to support your family who has no health care, then sit on your behind and be critical.
You stress that "It is a movement not only here but all over the world." as if that is a good thing. Considering that we are the best of what the world has to offer since we are made up of the best of what the world has to offer I would not be so quick as to wish to be in any way in agreement with the best of the world. The king of the hill shouldn't wish to be like those at the bottom.
It isn't wall streets greed that got us into this situation. It is OUR greed. Our greed has exposed us to risks and unless we can admit that then no movement will ever accomplish anything. Our governments involvement in regulating financial guidelines has exposed us to this risk, under the guise of social justice and fairness. These regulations cause us to be lazy and not do our proper homework and assume that any investment we venture will return a profit without risk ipso facto. This is pure greed and foolishness on our behalf and the very fact that people will double down on a 16 into an ace and then cry when they lose fills me with contempt and disgust.
Neither my life nor the American Way has anything to do with making people homeless or poverty stricken and that is a fallacy to present that and reveals a dishonest way arguing that lessens any value you might have to present. Health Care? To Hades with health care. I don't have it by choice and no government will ever force me to have it. People like you who wish to steal my freedom and enslave my children and lineage for a pipe dream that could only ever accomplish the exact opposite of its intentions makes me wonder how people can manage to be so shortsighted and foolish.
I admire the Civil Rights movement and count among my heroes members of it, but I know what they stood for and they never asked for anything special. They never asked to strip the freedoms and rights of others for their sake. They only ever asked to be treated as truly free people and be allowed to live free (which is exactly the opposite of mandated health care and the encumbrance of an ever regulating and increasingly meddlesome government that does instead of its duties everything else.
-
Personally I am more frightened with facts such as Obama being an admitted associate and admirer of known terrorists, his use of American resources and coin to launch assaults upon Americans while advocating superior rights to Foreign nationals than American citizens receive, his attempts at micromanaging of American companies and federal departments (really now, NASA having its primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" ... )
What are the reference sources for these alleged "facts"? For instance, I have been unable to discern that NASA's primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" from database searches of mission directorates, etc..
-
It isn't wall streets greed that got us into this situation. It is OUR greed. Our greed has exposed us to risks and unless we can admit that then no movement will ever accomplish anything. Our governments involvement in regulating financial guidelines has exposed us to this risk, under the guise of social justice and fairness.
This is incorrect; it was and is unregulated derivative instruments, (a multi-trillion dollar 'shadow' banking system), which Wall Street brokerages and wealthy investors took advantage of - directly contributing to the current economic situation. These irresponsible clowns then begged for and received multi-billion dollar bailouts for being greedy and irresponsible.
-
Personally I am more frightened with facts such as Obama being an admitted associate and admirer of known terrorists, his use of American resources and coin to launch assaults upon Americans while advocating superior rights to Foreign nationals than American citizens receive, his attempts at micromanaging of American companies and federal departments (really now, NASA having its primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" ... )
What are the reference sources for these alleged "facts"? For instance, I have been unable to discern that NASA's primary purpose changed to "investigating ways to make Muslim nations feel good about themselves" from database searches of mission directorates, etc..
Hear it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html
-
It isn't wall streets greed that got us into this situation. It is OUR greed. Our greed has exposed us to risks and unless we can admit that then no movement will ever accomplish anything. Our governments involvement in regulating financial guidelines has exposed us to this risk, under the guise of social justice and fairness.
This is incorrect; it was and is unregulated derivative instruments, (a multi-trillion dollar 'shadow' banking system), which Wall Street brokerages and wealthy investors took advantage of - directly contributing to the current economic situation. These irresponsible clowns then begged for and received multi-billion dollar bailouts for being greedy and irresponsible.
There are problems with derivatives and that cannot be denied, but let them die by their own swords and they will learn the lessons that would correct the problems innately via the risk of them -- that is how things should work. The government bailing them out was the crime here, using their fear instilling catch phrases. They should have never been bailed out as now things are worse then they ever would have been and the situation in Wall Street is even more precarious and our coffers are empty and our purse strings are tight while the government ponders more ways to loosen them.
-
Here it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html
Yes, I managed to locate one reference after I asked and just before you posted. However, that reference includes more of a 'wishlist':
"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things:
1 - inspire children to learn math and science
2 - expand international relationships and
3 - 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.' "
The "perhaps foremost" part is speculative since it assumes a priority and making muslim nations feel good about a few distant ancestors coming up with 'Arabic' numbers is a bit like making Anglo-Saxon descendants feel good about their ancestors contributing to the English language.
-
Here it from Charles Bolden himself doing an interview on Al Jazeera: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/nasa-chief-obama-wanted-me-to-make-muslims-feel-good-about-their-history.html
Yes, I managed to locate one reference after I asked and just before you posted. However, that reference includes more of a 'wishlist':
"NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things:
1 - inspire children to learn math and science
2 - expand international relationships and
3 - 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.' "
The "perhaps foremost" part is speculative since it assumes a priority and making muslim nations feel good about a few distant ancestors coming up with 'Arabic' numbers is a bit like making Anglo-Saxon descendants feel good about their ancestors contributing to the English language.
When you consider some of the actions of NASA, such as abandoning the space shuttle, putting forth some of their 'scientists' with claims of discovering new life forms when all they discovered was that they didn't even apply the most basic requirements of science in their evaluations, you can only imagine that they have abandoned their former purpose and are now in pursuit of something other than what they are about.
-
When you consider some of the actions of NASA, such as abandoning the space shuttle ...
There are more cost-effective launch systems than the 'flying brick'.
... putting forth some of their 'scientists' with claims of discovering new life forms when all they discovered was that they didn't even apply the most basic requirements of science in their evaluations ...
Are you referring to the bacteria that eats arsenic?
... you can only imagine that they have abandoned their former purpose and are now in pursuit of something other than what they are about.
NASA's mission directorate still lists primary space missions: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/future/index.html
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans. (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.) So lets even everyone out.
Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share. Now what? Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work. I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans. (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.) So lets even everyone out.
Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share. Now what? Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work. I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.
I completely agree with you on this. I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want. /quote]
I'm not sure what the objectives are either.
Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans. (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.) So lets even everyone out.
I've seen calculations where, if all the money & property in the U.S. were divided between the adults there, it would come out to around $25,000, (these numbers vary between $5,000 and $50,000, depending upon valuations of property). So, everyone wouldn't be "rich" under such 'socialism'.
Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share. Now what? Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work. I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.
It looks like fear and desparation are the usual suspects.
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans. (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.) So lets even everyone out.
Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share. Now what? Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work. I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.
I completely agree with you on this. I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.
You mean like Wall Street bailouts?
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
Let's say we took all of the money and property away from everyone and then we evenly divided it among all Americans. (As near as I can tell, their beef is that some have more than others and therefore they wield more power.) So lets even everyone out.
Now, 12 months down the road some people would be broke and penniless and some people would have doubled or quadrupled their share. Now what? Do we take it away from those who were responsible with their share and give it to those who were not?
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work. I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
Maybe I just don't understand what they want, but I think in a nutshell they just want some of what other people have without having to get it themselves.
I completely agree with you on this. I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.
You mean like Wall Street bailouts?
Yes.
-
I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.
You mean like Wall Street bailouts?
[/quote]
Yes. [/quote]
Seems asymetrical then. I'm for a more symetrical variations; no one gets bailouts.
-
I think that is why some of them also push for sustained hand outs in addition to a pure distribution, because they know they would trick off whatever they could wrest directly.
You mean like Wall Street bailouts?
Yes. [/quote]
Seems asymetrical then. I'm for a more symetrical variations; no one gets bailouts.
[/quote]
I too am for no bailouts, where did you think I supported any?
-
I too am for no bailouts, where did you think I supported any?
I'm not sure ... it may have been a vague implication of your republican comments.
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
http://occupywallst.org/about/
There a many more reasons that come from each individuals story. This is the primary focus of it.
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.
You forgot deliberately cheating the system and screwing people over.
I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
This is an interesting article a friend shared with me over a month ago that I recommend you read-
The impetus behind the Occupy Wall Street movement - a vague sense that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010. Those figures give real substance to the "We are the 99%" slogan, yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income. The Tea Party, meanwhile, has launched its own "53%" movement, inexplicably rallying the working class to the defense of the wealthy. The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus. I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028500/-A-Voice-From-the-1
-
I am for it, Bank of America bought Countrywide who did thousands if not millions of faulty loans to people who should have not got them. Now Bank of America is using government funds to bail them out of what they caused, and they are treating their existing customers like crap.
-
So back to Occupy Wallstreet. I just don't understand what they want.
http://occupywallst.org/about/
There a many more reasons that come from each individuals story. This is the primary focus of it.
Some people make money through luck but most make it through hard work.
You forgot deliberately cheating the system and screwing people over.
I just don't see how you can redistribute wealth just because some people want more.
This is an interesting article a friend shared with me over a month ago that I recommend you read-
The impetus behind the Occupy Wall Street movement - a vague sense that the rich are getting ever richer while everyone else suffers - was confirmed by a recent report from the Social Security Administration showing that while total employment and average wages remained stagnant, the number of people earning $1 million or more grew by 18% from 2009 to 2010. Those figures give real substance to the "We are the 99%" slogan, yet Republicans continue to insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if anything those "job creators" deserve an even greater share of our national income. The Tea Party, meanwhile, has launched its own "53%" movement, inexplicably rallying the working class to the defense of the wealthy. The one group rarely heard from in this rancorous debate is the 1%, whose incomes and taxes are its focus. I am one of them, and here is my perspective, which may surprise you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028500/-A-Voice-From-the-1
I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image. These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things. Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.
The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous). I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation. Would the US be suddenly richer for this? No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.
I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself. They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys. They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement. They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.
-
I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image. These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things.
Maybe we should take the stars off of the american flag because they can remind people of the positions of the red stars on the chinese flag?
Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.
They're going through a similar crisis that is physically worse than ours is. They want better managing of their systems as do we.
I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation. Would the US be suddenly richer for this? No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.
Who said anything about removing the 1%? Did I miss it? Again, that's not what the OWS protests are about. It's about fairness and how the dubbed 1% should have to play by the same rules as all other Americans do (like paying taxes- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html ). It's about keeping congress and lobbyist's further apart. As another article puts it- "This is not about communism, socialism, or class warfare. It’s not about soaking the rich or redistributing wealth to the poor. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about returning America to a system where hard working people in the bottom 99% have a chance to benefit in equal proportion to the top one percent. This is about making America the land of opportunity again."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-%E2%80%93-yes-it%E2%80%99s-about-handouts/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/311/executive-pay.html
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
-
The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous).
It isn't disingenuous to point out that republicans generally favor tax breaks for the wealthy and oppose national healthcare for those who aren't, (since they can afford it or get it free via Congressional/Senatorial benefits, why would they represent their constituents instead?).
I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself. They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys. They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement. They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.
The "government regulation" alluded vaguely to specifically refers to the shady derivatives instruments which fueled the economic crisis and directly lead to those corporate bailouts for big business. Those among the OWS movement who find such things 'imbalanced' do so correctly.
-
The Occupy Wall Street Movement is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in police, clean up, emt services etc, but is the cost affecting the 1% or the 99%?
-
The Occupy Wall Street Movement is costing taxpayers millions of dollars in police, clean up, emt services etc, but is the cost affecting the 1% or the 99%?
The cost would be borne by who paid more taxes - which group would that be, the 1% or the 99%?
-
I am actually put off by the "solidarity" slogan and the fist image. These being popular images of communism/socialism and such things.
Maybe we should take the stars off of the american flag because they can remind people of the positions of the red stars on the chinese flag?
Also the mentioning of Egypt and Tunisia being a motivator are, in themselves, enough to make me against the movements as the indicated importance of them suggests an imagery inspired movement and as such would be emotionally fueled.
They're going through a similar crisis that is physically worse than ours is. They want better managing of their systems as do we.
I also can only grin when I imagine what would happen if you removed the 1% from the equation. Would the US be suddenly richer for this? No, we would be far worse off and would most certainly enter into a depression that would last until some of those remaining could take up the mantle of the previous 1% and restore us to a point of motivation and success.
Who said anything about removing the 1%? Did I miss it? Again, that's not what the OWS protests are about. It's about fairness and how the dubbed 1% should have to play by the same rules as all other Americans do (like paying taxes- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/business/13tax.html ). It's about keeping congress and lobbyist's further apart. As another article puts it- "This is not about communism, socialism, or class warfare. It’s not about soaking the rich or redistributing wealth to the poor. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about returning America to a system where hard working people in the bottom 99% have a chance to benefit in equal proportion to the top one percent. This is about making America the land of opportunity again."
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-%E2%80%93-yes-it%E2%80%99s-about-handouts/
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/311/executive-pay.html
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
Considering the Chinese flag was made over 170 years after ours and isn't even similar looking I don't see the connection. OWS though is undeniably a socialist movement and populated by liberals/socialists/communists.
The people of Egypt and Tunisia are nothing like us, and any attempts to draw parallels will be based purely on imagery. They do not think the same as us and they do not have the same values as we do. What is good to them would likely not be to us and vice versa.
OWS identifies the 1% as the problem. If you identify the problem then the logical step is to remove it from the equation and reevaluate. If the result is worse off without the 'problem' then you can be immediately assured that the assumed 'problem' was incorrect. All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors. Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it. To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation. Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!
-
The intentional identification of 'Republicans' reveals a political bias (and although I am not opposed to such usage at all I know those against the tax increases are not just from the ranks of Republicans and it makes the point seem disingenuous).
It isn't disingenuous to point out that republicans generally favor tax breaks for the wealthy and oppose national healthcare for those who aren't, (since they can afford it or get it free via Congressional/Senatorial benefits, why would they represent their constituents instead?).
I tend to find the bulk of the greed residing within the OWS movement itself. They want what others have much the same as children would another's toys. They want more government involvement and regulations into areas where the primary source of our current dilemma is a direct result of such government involvement. They would bind others gladly without realizing they are putting themselves on the exact same chain gang.
The "government regulation" alluded vaguely to specifically refers to the shady derivatives instruments which fueled the economic crisis and directly lead to those corporate bailouts for big business. Those among the OWS movement who find such things 'imbalanced' do so correctly.
I oppose national healthcare myself. What is wrong with opposing slavery? I also feel that a persons money is their own and that when a government extends beyond its enumerated powers that it has no claim to levy taxes based on any reasoning beyond what it is legally authorized to do.
Why isn't the OWS protesting against the government then? The reason is because they are a tool of the liberal/socialist movement in America that is using class warfare and decisive tactics in an attempt to get Obama and the Democrats reelected. They are trying to mimic the Tea Party movement but they don't posses an more of an understanding of what that was about now as they did when it started.
-
OWS though is undeniably a socialist movement and populated by liberals/socialists/communists.
Undeniably? Naturally, you have verifiable evidence for this claim which you are able to produce.
OWS identifies the 1% as the problem. If you identify the problem then the logical step is to remove it from the equation and reevaluate.
No, the next logical step is to evaluate the variables to determine if changing them with regards to the 1% would positively affect the problem, (that's where removing the 1% isn't a viable option).
If the result is worse off without the 'problem' then you can be immediately assured that the assumed 'problem' was incorrect.
That's only partially accurate. If the 'problem' is worse after the removal of the presumed cause of that problem, then there are at least two possibilities. One, that the presumed cause wasn't the _entire_ cause for the problem or, that the presumed cause was unrelated to the problem. If other factors contributed to the problem, (along with the 1%), then some progress has been made in 'solving' the problem and those other contributing factors can then be isolated and addressed.
If the presumed cause was unrelated to the problem, removing it would have no effect, (positive or negative), on the "result". If the result were a negative effect, then the presumed cause _was_ related to the problem and the removal just made the problem worse, (not a desirable result).
The more viable solution is to affect changes to the contibuting factors, (the 1% among them), until the desired result is achieved. This may or may not ever occur.
All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors. Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it.
This is incorrect. According to the IRS, those of a middleclass income pay more taxes than those in the highest tax brackets. Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.
To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation. Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income? A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets. Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.
[/quote]
-
All of this so called "fair rules" and such is pure smoke and mirrors. Considering the 1% pay most of the taxes and the bulk of the OWS pay less than 1% of the taxes I would question how "fair" they actually want it.
This is incorrect. According to the IRS, those of a middleclass income pay more taxes than those in the highest tax brackets. Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.
The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be. Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).
To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation. Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income? A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets. Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.
Yes I am suggesting this. If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts. As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption. People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill. Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).
-
The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be. Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).
There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation. There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%). Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes. Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion. Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group. For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation. Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income? A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets. Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.
Yes I am suggesting this. If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts. As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption.
What "class warfare", or is this a euphemism? There has always been some divide between those who have what others do not. Most tax-related "corruption" stems from those who have sufficient income to desire to pay as little tax as possible on enormous capital gains, (through loopholes, shelters and accounting sleight-of-hand manuevers which are generally unavailable to the 99%).
People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill.
Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending. Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.
Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).
Not really, no. That's probably because the 1% often do not end up paying the same percentage in taxes that the 99% do, (due to those aforementioned tax shelters, loopholes and other tax 'breaks' afforded by their republican pals in Congress). By the way, Thirteen firms receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money owed a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes in 2009.
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_fc5d0cbe-5eaa-5240-aa2a-45aa013aa905.html#ixzz1f8GysZIX
-
The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be. Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).
There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation. There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%). Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes. Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion. Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group. For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
You specifically said middle class, not 99% and there is a major difference. The middle class do not pay more in taxes than the 1%, but that is also an unfair comparison anyways regardless of which side presents it as you will see the numbers considered within the middle class stretched or deflated to make whatever point you want with them and when using such an abstract description it can only be considered rhetoric. OWS does not represent the 99% who are not within the top 1% and you well know this. They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not. Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).
To me it would be more fair for everyone to pay the same amount (not the same %) since we are all equal as people within this great nation. Let us see just how willing these OWS would be to pay the same amount as the 1%!
Are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes $300,000 per year in taxable income should pay the same amount as someone else who makes $30,000 taxable, rather than a graduated percentage of their taxable income? A flat tax rate benefits the weathy far more than the middle or lower income brackets. Obviously, those who make far less than the 1% cannot afford to pay whatever amount in taxes the 1% haven't weaseled out of paying through write-offs their republican chorts finagled for them.
Yes I am suggesting this. If you want to be fair then I see nothing fairer than paying equal amounts. As long as their is a difference in the amounts (and honestly even in the deltas of percents) their will never be equality or freedom from class warfare, divisiveness, or corruption.
What "class warfare", or is this a euphemism? There has always been some divide between those who have what others do not. Most tax-related "corruption" stems from those who have sufficient income to desire to pay as little tax as possible on enormous capital gains, (through loopholes, shelters and accounting sleight-of-hand manuevers which are generally unavailable to the 99%).
Remember what capital gains is before you attempt to put it into a bad light. You should realize that capital gains is the result of a gambled investment that the government expects the rich to wager for both the chance of profit for those investing and the profit and growth of our nation.
People would actually have to think about decisions when asking for tax increases that normally would never effect them, or asking for more government spending when normally they would never have to foot the bill.
Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending. Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.
Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade. The influence that the 1% has upon political policies stems only from the governments intentional meddling into areas where it has no authority. The OWS seems to want even more of this meddling which would ever increase this which could only ever increase this influence most seem to detest. When you handcuff a suspected criminal to yourself you have also handcuffed yourself to the suspected criminal so do not forget that your path now becomes entwined with his and you become subject to his movements just as he is to yours.
Although you may not agree with me on the point, I would think you could see some reason and benefit of such an approach (perhaps if only in an even percentage increase in taxes for all and percentage decrease in hand outs for those not paying).
Not really, no. That's probably because the 1% often do not end up paying the same percentage in taxes that the 99% do, (due to those aforementioned tax shelters, loopholes and other tax 'breaks' afforded by their republican pals in Congress). By the way, Thirteen firms receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money owed a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes in 2009.
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_fc5d0cbe-5eaa-5240-aa2a-45aa013aa905.html#ixzz1f8GysZIX
There actually were about 94,500 millionaires who paid a smaller share in taxes than the next lower 10 million people, but did the pay less in taxes? No, they didn't and these 94,500 also didn't draw a paycheck and made their money strictly by investing and helping out others who needed the money (Well I took liberties there and stretched that and honestly I would say they strictly wanted to make a profit and invested into where they thought they had the best chance to make a profit at the least risk of losing their investment. I did this to demonstrate how you can present something in a way as to show it grander than its reality and you have also done the same, but without the qualification -- but hey that is part of debate). Don't lay this at the feet of Republicans, it is all of them and congress expects these wealthy to provide the basis for jobs and most certainly has tried many ways to encourage them to invest in the economy. Remember, this is money the rich already have and if you want them to gamble it back into the economy you are going to have to make certain assurances that they will not be penalized for doing this. Would you rather them just keep all their money and not invest it? To put it another way, would you loan me $50,000 with the agreement that if I lose it I owe you nothing, but if I make a profit I owe you 20% of that profit? How about if you had to pay 60% in taxes on the 20% of profit you might make? I bet neither of those sounds like a very good deal to you but yet the first is basically what these investors do today and the later is what the OWS movement want.
-
I am compltetely for the movement. I believe that "You deserve what you do and you earn what you should earn." It is not right that someone becomes a fat cat by doing some faulty misleading financial behaviours to other people.
-
The middle class do not pay more in taxes than the 1%, but that is also an unfair comparison anyways regardless of which side presents it as you will see the numbers considered within the middle class stretched or deflated to make whatever point you want with them and when using such an abstract description it can only be considered rhetoric.
I used the IRS stats for 2009 to catagorize which income brackets paid what amount of taxes. These stats are neither "abstract", "stretched" nor "deflated"; they represent the raw data. Using such unsupported hyperbole as "abstract", "stretched" or "deflated" to inaccurately detract from the mathematical result of IRS data is, however empty rhetoric.
OWS does not represent the 99% who are not within the top 1% and you well know this.
How are you determining what I do and do not know? The Occupy Wall Streeters claim to represent the 99% rather then the 1%. I'm not sure why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents and risk arrest unless as a diversionary tactic, ('they went thatta way - git 'em!')? Any theories?
They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not. Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).
How do you know this; have you got any reliable source references for these assertions?
Given that in 2005 at least, (I haven't seen data for the more recent years since), 73% of the total taxes collected were from the 99%ers who are footing most of the bill for government spending. Whereas the 1% who pay 27% of collected taxes seem to have a much greater effect upon political policies related to taxation and 'pork barrel' projects than the working slob.
[/quote]
Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade.
Your undefined sources for this 46% notwithstanding, you brought up getting more out than being paid in taxes. I also noted that in regards to "pork barrel" projects kicking billions in tax-payer money back to the larger corporations employing PACs. It's not clear whether the 'pork' outpaces the 'entitlement' programs however, the 99% do pay more in taxes than the corporations utilizing tax write-offs, loopholes, restructuring, goverment subsidies/fat pork barrel contracts and other dodges in order to pay as little taxes as possible.
There actually were about 94,500 millionaires who paid a smaller share in taxes than the next lower 10 million people, but did the pay less in taxes? No, they didn't and these 94,500 also didn't draw a paycheck and made their money strictly by investing ...
Capital gains are taxed as income, whether the earner draws a paycheck or not. So, you are conceding that 94,500 millionaires who make their money investing, (in anticipation of capital gains, or losses which can be written-off), paid less the the next tax bracket of 10 million people, (and less than the larger brackets below this, by extension). Before you demure, I'm using your own statement above to discern this.
Don't lay this at the feet of Republicans, it is all of them and congress expects these wealthy to provide the basis for jobs and most certainly has tried many ways to encourage them to invest in the economy.
Actually, there are wealthy republicans and wealthy democrats - both seek to shield their wealth and that of their wealthy supporters.
Remember, this is money the rich already have and if you want them to gamble it back into the economy you are going to have to make certain assurances that they will not be penalized for doing this. Would you rather them just keep all their money and not invest it? To put it another way, would you loan me $50,000 with the agreement that if I lose it I owe you nothing, but if I make a profit I owe you 20% of that profit? How about if you had to pay 60% in taxes on the 20% of profit you might make? I bet neither of those sounds like a very good deal to you but yet the first is basically what these investors do today and the later is what the OWS movement want.
In a market-driven economy, there are no ironclad assurances for returns on investmenting in "the economy", (such as rehiring laid-off employees). However, if those companies sitting on billions of dollars would 'invest' some of it in hiring people in large numbers, those people would spend some of that income, (putting it back into the economy and into corporate pockets by inclusion). This is a basic economic principle and why it escapes the unltra-conservative CEOs escapes my extrapolations, (of sure, they could be dumb, greedy, short-sighted or any number of less flattering descriptors but, I have only circumstantial data to support such theories).
-
The middleclass do not pay more in taxes than those in the highest brackets and you are well aware of this or at least you should be. Consider that some of these 1% draw no salary people often seem to get confused about this, especially when the data is misrepresented as it is here (you may not be deliberately doing it, but I give you credit for attention to detail and don't see how the facts could escape you).
There was no implied or stated data misrepresentation in regards to taxation. There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%). Of those 99% who pay taxes, the total amount paid in aggregate is greater than the total paid by the 1% highest income who pay taxes. Taxes are due based upon income and those who draw no salary do not fall under that taxation parameter so, mentioning them is an irrelevant disversion. Overall, the middle income tax payers do pay more as a 'class' of tax-payers than the 1% highest earning tax-payers do as a group. For instance, in 2005 people in the upper 1% income bracket paid 27% of the taxes collected while everyone else paid the remaining 73%.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
Did you even read the paragraph above the chart from your link?
"Here is a graph showing how the rich make more income and pay even more in taxes. While the upper middle class pay about the same percentage in taxes as the make. Finally the lower 60% pay less in taxes then their % of the nation income."
Your link doesn't even support your own argument. Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic. I don't care where you want to draw the line, but there is nothing "middle" about the top 10%.
-
i think its stupid.. if pple complain wtf are they gonna get in life. i know there is standing up to them but its getting ridulouse..
-
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
Did you even read the paragraph above the chart from your link?
"Here is a graph showing how the rich make more income and pay even more in taxes. While the upper middle class pay about the same percentage in taxes as the make. Finally the lower 60% pay less in taxes then their % of the nation income."
"The same percentage" does not equate to the same amount of taxes paid. That link shows that the upper 1% income bracket pays 27% of the taxes collected while the remaining 99% pay 70% of the taxes collected. Of the total taxes collected, the lower 99% of tax-payers pay 43% more
of the collected taxes than the upper 1% do. Percentage of income is a misleading factor since 10% of $1 million is a much different number than 10% of $30,000, ($100,000 vs. $3,000 ... still 10% but, wide variance in bottonline dollar amounts).
Your link doesn't even support your own argument. Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic. I don't care where you want to draw the line, but there is nothing "middle" about the top 10%.
Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.
The link divides tax-payers into eight catagories; 1% at $1,558,500, 4% at $277,200, 5% at $161,100, 10% at $120,700, 20% at $85,200, 20% at $58,500, 20% at $37,400 and 20% at $15,900. A "middle income" is nominally defined as a midrange average between the lowest and hightest extremes. While exact numbers are open to debate, the link's numbers suggest that at least 59% of the tax-payers fell into the middle income range of $37,401 and $277,199. These tax-payers paid 66% of the total taxes collected. The upper 1% paid 27% of the total taxes paid, therefore, the link does support my argument despite the fact that, because they made more than 99% of other tax-payers, they got taxed more, (as a graduated percentage), than lower income people.
Let me ask you this; would you rather make $1 million and get taxed, say 33%, (or $330,000), and retain $670,000 or, make $30,000 and get taxed at 10%, ($3,000), and retain $27,000?
-
The middle class do not pay more in taxes than the 1%, but that is also an unfair comparison anyways regardless of which side presents it as you will see the numbers considered within the middle class stretched or deflated to make whatever point you want with them and when using such an abstract description it can only be considered rhetoric.
I used the IRS stats for 2009 to catagorize which income brackets paid what amount of taxes. These stats are neither "abstract", "stretched" nor "deflated"; they represent the raw data. Using such unsupported hyperbole as "abstract", "stretched" or "deflated" to inaccurately detract from the mathematical result of IRS data is, however empty rhetoric.
That is bullshit. You specifically said "middleclass" and that is an abstract, subjective, and ambiguous term. Additionally it wasn't even indicated as an interpretation in anything you presented so do not accuse me of empty rhetoric after your entire argument was baseless and unsupported.
OWS does not represent the 99% who are not within the top 1% and you well know this.
How are you determining what I do and do not know? The Occupy Wall Streeters claim to represent the 99% rather then the 1%. I'm not sure why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents and risk arrest unless as a diversionary tactic, ('they went thatta way - git 'em!')? Any theories?
I don't think I am giving you too much credit to assume you are aware that they do not represent everyone they claim to, but of course I cannot prove that, so if you wish to play the naive and gullible fool then please suit yourself as I think I know better. I am sure I wouldn't know why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents either, is their a particular reason why you even mentioned that as it seems a strange thing to ask?
They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not. Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).
How do you know this; have you got any reliable source references for these assertions?
I keep my ear to the ground and pay close attention to the words and posturing of peoples. There is quite a bit revealed sometimes by not just what people say but also what they don't say. I am not sure that I could supply references that would satisfy you as they would be my interpretations of people and I cannot produce any certification of competence in such a skill.
Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade.
Your undefined sources for this 46% notwithstanding, you brought up getting more out than being paid in taxes. I also noted that in regards to "pork barrel" projects kicking billions in tax-payer money back to the larger corporations employing PACs. It's not clear whether the 'pork' outpaces the 'entitlement' programs however, the 99% do pay more in taxes than the corporations utilizing tax write-offs, loopholes, restructuring, goverment subsidies/fat pork barrel contracts and other dodges in order to pay as little taxes as possible.
I do not like pork barrel projects anymore than you do so you are preaching to the choir in that regard. I don't like crony capitalism either, regardless of who is president. It is quite clear, though, which outpaces which if you simply look at the expenditure of the US budget. Additionally, don't forget that the money of the corporations ultimately goes to people and those people do pay taxes on them in the long run. Personally I would like some sort of flat tax so with no loopholes or exceptions and I think most people would as well.
There actually were about 94,500 millionaires who paid a smaller share in taxes than the next lower 10 million people, but did the pay less in taxes? No, they didn't and these 94,500 also didn't draw a paycheck and made their money strictly by investing ...
Capital gains are taxed as income, whether the earner draws a paycheck or not. So, you are conceding that 94,500 millionaires who make their money investing, (in anticipation of capital gains, or losses which can be written-off), paid less the the next tax bracket of 10 million people, (and less than the larger brackets below this, by extension). Before you demure, I'm using your own statement above to discern this.
I didn't concede anything, I am the one who pointed the facts out so don't try to make it out like the reverse is true. And I said these people paid a lower percentage, not less. In fact they paid much more. Also you mention they can write off their losses, but you failed to mention that it is to the amount of $1,500 which is a paltry amount of what they would have risked.
Don't lay this at the feet of Republicans, it is all of them and congress expects these wealthy to provide the basis for jobs and most certainly has tried many ways to encourage them to invest in the economy.
Actually, there are wealthy republicans and wealthy democrats - both seek to shield their wealth and that of their wealthy supporters.
Damned the Devil, we agree on this.
Remember, this is money the rich already have and if you want them to gamble it back into the economy you are going to have to make certain assurances that they will not be penalized for doing this. Would you rather them just keep all their money and not invest it? To put it another way, would you loan me $50,000 with the agreement that if I lose it I owe you nothing, but if I make a profit I owe you 20% of that profit? How about if you had to pay 60% in taxes on the 20% of profit you might make? I bet neither of those sounds like a very good deal to you but yet the first is basically what these investors do today and the later is what the OWS movement want.
In a market-driven economy, there are no ironclad assurances for returns on investmenting in "the economy", (such as rehiring laid-off employees). However, if those companies sitting on billions of dollars would 'invest' some of it in hiring people in large numbers, those people would spend some of that income, (putting it back into the economy and into corporate pockets by inclusion). This is a basic economic principle and why it escapes the unltra-conservative CEOs escapes my extrapolations, (of sure, they could be dumb, greedy, short-sighted or any number of less flattering descriptors but, I have only circumstantial data to support such theories).
It is their greed that we depend upon. Their greed is what makes them invest and it is an animal we all can easily understand and bank on. They will do with their money what they think is in their best interest and if they are sitting on it that gives you an understanding of how they view the economy or plethora of regulations and policies coming out of Washington. It is actually uncertainty at the moment that is hindering the bulk of their reserved approach and even if bad things were coming out of Washington they would adapt and invest -- but as it is things are haphazard and one way then the other and that leaves them no room to predict.
-
I am sure I wouldn't know why the wealthier 1% would camp out in tents either, is their a particular reason why you even mentioned that as it seems a strange thing to ask?
It was mentioned because of the inherent implication of your supposition that the OWS protesters are presenting an "illusion" of being anti-1%, (which tacitly suggests that there are 1%ers among them, in tents). So, either it's not an illusion and they are representative of the 99% or, they have 1% moles secreted 'aboot tha lair'.
They take a position of being anti 1% so as to present the illusion that they are the other 99% but they are not. Mostly they are the 46% who pay no taxes and a mixture of some of the 1% who have a vested interest in seeing Democrats reelected (did you ever do any research to see how many of the 1% support OWS and start to wonder what is really going on here?).
How do you know this; have you got any reliable source references for these assertions?
[/quote]
I keep my ear to the ground and pay close attention to the words and posturing of peoples. There is quite a bit revealed sometimes by not just what people say but also what they don't say. I am not sure that I could supply references that would satisfy you as they would be my interpretations of people and I cannot produce any certification of competence in such a skill.
As you allude, such interpretations are extremely subjective and not readily verifiable. Essentially, you're hazarding a guess and implicitly suggesting perception of aspects which are not necessarily perceived by others, (hmm ... that sounds familar ...).
Over 46% of those 99% are taking out more than they are putting in and when we present that 99% in a truer light your illusion begins to fade.
Your undefined sources for this 46% notwithstanding, you brought up getting more out than being paid in taxes. I also noted that in regards to "pork barrel" projects kicking billions in tax-payer money back to the larger corporations employing PACs. It's not clear whether the 'pork' outpaces the 'entitlement' programs however, the 99% do pay more in taxes than the corporations utilizing tax write-offs, loopholes, restructuring, goverment subsidies/fat pork barrel contracts and other dodges in order to pay as little taxes as possible.
I do not like pork barrel projects anymore than you do so you are preaching to the choir in that regard. I don't like crony capitalism either, regardless of who is president. It is quite clear, though, which outpaces which if you simply look at the expenditure of the US budget.
You are correct in that 'entitlements' outpace 'earmarks' by at least 10 to 1 however, the bulk of money paid out in such 'entitlements' cycles back into the general economy while the bulk of 'earmark' money, (sans labor costs), goes into corporate or private coffers.
Additionally, don't forget that the money of the corporations ultimately goes to people and those people do pay taxes on them in the long run. Personally I would like some sort of flat tax so with no loopholes or exceptions and I think most people would as well.
I disagree. Look at the last several earning quarters of the major oil companies; those multiple billions in profits aren't cycling back into the economy, they are being sucked out of it.
It is their greed that we depend upon. Their greed is what makes them invest and it is an animal we all can easily understand and bank on. They will do with their money what they think is in their best interest and if they are sitting on it that gives you an understanding of how they view the economy or plethora of regulations and policies coming out of Washington. It is actually uncertainty at the moment that is hindering the bulk of their reserved approach and even if bad things were coming out of Washington they would adapt and invest -- but as it is things are haphazard and one way then the other and that leaves them no room to predict.
Of course, perhaps I should have characterized it as a 'greed-driven' economy. Given that, there cannot be unchecked greed at the expense of all others else that economy will likely crash. Regulations can barely keep such greed in check and even then, incompletely at best. Conservatives abhor unpredictability while entrepeneurs thrive on it. You spoke of gambling; when is it time for fearful tightwads to take a calculate risk?
-
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
Did you even read the paragraph above the chart from your link?
"Here is a graph showing how the rich make more income and pay even more in taxes. While the upper middle class pay about the same percentage in taxes as the make. Finally the lower 60% pay less in taxes then their % of the nation income."
"The same percentage" does not equate to the same amount of taxes paid. That link shows that the upper 1% income bracket pays 27% of the taxes collected while the remaining 99% pay 70% of the taxes collected. Of the total taxes collected, the lower 99% of tax-payers pay 43% more
of the collected taxes than the upper 1% do. Percentage of income is a misleading factor since 10% of $1 million is a much different number than 10% of $30,000, ($100,000 vs. $3,000 ... still 10% but, wide variance in bottonline dollar amounts).
It is even more evident that you do not have any idea what the chart is saying. “Percentage of income” is not at all misleading if you actually understand what the chart is trying to say. By the percentage of income, the chart is referring to the how much income a given group makes in comparison to the total national income for that year. So, 10% of national income is going to be the same number regardless of where it falls. So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected. Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.
Your link doesn't even support your own argument. Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic. I don't care where you want to draw the line, but there is nothing "middle" about the top 10%.
Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.
Actually, you did.
There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%).
The link divides tax-payers into eight catagories; 1% at $1,558,500, 4% at $277,200, 5% at $161,100, 10% at $120,700, 20% at $85,200, 20% at $58,500, 20% at $37,400 and 20% at $15,900. A "middle income" is nominally defined as a midrange average between the lowest and hightest extremes. While exact numbers are open to debate, the link's numbers suggest that at least 59% of the tax-payers fell into the middle income range of $37,401 and $277,199. These tax-payers paid 66% of the total taxes collected. The upper 1% paid 27% of the total taxes paid, therefore, the link does support my argument despite the fact that, because they made more than 99% of other tax-payers, they got taxed more, (as a graduated percentage), than lower income people.
If really you want to include someone who makes more than 98% of the population as being in the "middle" class, than that is up to you. That is not what the chart is saying, but I digress.
Reading the paragraph above the chart can give you a good idea of what breakdowns they use. Those being the the top 20% = Upper Class, the 21%-80% middle class, and the bottom 20% = Lower Class. Which would be a pretty standard distribution.
So to compare.
The top 1% makes 18% of the total national income and pays 27% of the total income taxes.
The middle class (21%-80%) makes 41% of the total national income and pays 30% of the total income taxes.
-
So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected. Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.
If one group of tax-payers, (those not among the 1% paying 27% of the total taxes collected), is paying 73% of the total taxes collected then that group is paying more taxes than the group paying 27% of them. Surely you're not implicitly suggesting that 27% of the total is greater than 73% of the total paid?
Your link doesn't even support your own argument. Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic. I don't care where you want to draw the line, but there is nothing "middle" about the top 10%.
Since I didn't classify the remaining 99% of tax-payers as "middle" but, as 'middle and lower income tax-payers', there is no flawed logic involved.
[/quote]
Actually, you did.
There are more middle and lower income people, (the 99%), than there are higher income people, (the 1%).
Actually, the quote specifies "middle income", not 'middle class' as your false accusation of "flawed logic" asserted, ("Classifying anyone outside the 1% as middle or lower class is just flawed logic." - hawkeye3210).
The top 1% makes 18% of the total national income and pays 27% of the total income taxes.
The middle class (21%-80%) makes 41% of the total national income and pays 30% of the total income taxes.
Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%. This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected. Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.
-
So, what the chart is actually saying is that the Top 1% make up 18% of total national income, but are paying 27% of total taxes collected. Conversely, if you want to still group the 99% as a whole, the “99%” make 82% of the total national income and pay 73% of the income taxes collected. It should be pretty evident that people with higher incomes are paying higher tax rates. That is the purpose of the chart.
If one group of tax-payers, (those not among the 1% paying 27% of the total taxes collected), is paying 73% of the total taxes collected then that group is paying more taxes than the group paying 27% of them. Surely you're not implicitly suggesting that 27% of the total is greater than 73% of the total paid?
No, I am saying that your whole argument that the 99% pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes to be factually inaccurate. Need I remind you.
Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.
Now your just spinning in circles trying to cling on to any possible point you could make.
Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%. This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected. Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.
Add the lower 20% and the less than 1% of the total taxes they pay if you want. So, the lower 80% makes up 27% more of the total national income than the top 1%, and pays only 3-4% more in the total taxes collected. And your contention would be that this is unfair to those outside the 1%?
-
No, I am saying that your whole argument that the 99% pays a greater percentage of their income in taxes to be factually inaccurate. Need I remind you.
Yes, do remind me where I stated it was a greater "percentage of their income", (rather than a greater total amount of taxes paid). Given your previous example of quoting what I didn't state, that would be as relavent.
Considering that the OWS participants 'appear' to consist of anyone _except_ the upper 1%, the bulk of OWS participants are far more likely to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes.
Now your just spinning in circles trying to cling on to any possible point you could make.
Now you're just being pendantic. The point was and remains that the upper 1% pays less tax than the remaining 99%. It isn't "any possible point"; it's the one raised with "Abrupt" and contended by both of you, (although you appear to be tenaciously avoiding that point by tossing out ad hominems). Whether 3-4% more represents a signficant dollar amount collected in taxes hasn't been examined as an auxillary supportive point as yet.
Even using that distribution, the middle income earners are still paying 3% more in total taxes collected than the top 1%. This does not even include lower income tax-payers who add to the total taxes collected. Summarily, data supports my contention that everyone else pays more taxes than the upper 1%.
Add the lower 20% and the less than 1% of the total taxes they pay if you want. So, the lower 80% makes up 27% more of the total national income than the top 1%, and pays only 3-4% more in the total taxes collected. And your contention would be that this is unfair to those outside the 1%?
I contended no such thing regarding it being "unfair". I contended that the bulk of tax-payers paid more in collected taxes than the 1%. This contention was supported by the government's data. If you are instead fishing for my opinion on the 'fairness' of the tax structure in this instance, you need but ask straight out.
-
I'm all for abolish or at least audit the Federal Reserve, and a higher standard/better enforced regulatory system for Wall Street but I must say that I thoroughly enjoy all the ignoramouses participating in this Occupy movement who have no clue why they're even there except socialistic what's-yours-should-be-mine BS.
If you haven't, check out RON PAUL!!
-
I like Ron Paul, he is a liberals worst fear (they fear him even more than they fear the generic concept of freedom).
-
I believe in the right to express yourself. Especially if you feel there is injustice. I don't get what they hope to accomplish. Wall Street is full of a bunch of blood suckers that the government is in bed with. I give them props for sticking it out and making their concerns known. :dontknow:
-
I am for occupy washington dc
-
If you are NOT a millionaire, (and why would you be on here making extra money if you were) and you have been tricked into thinking OWS is not fighting for you... You are mentally retarded.
If you vote for republican presidential candidates and you are not very wealthy, you are stupid. No defense. Just stupid.
You idiots are the reason many people can't go to the doctor. Your racism (anti-welfare), and fear of fags force you to vote in the best interest of a party that wishes to keep you poor and increase their wealth.
No candidate is gonna take your shotgun or force you to watch gay butt sex.