Do you agree or disagree with the (99 %)?

[Abrupt]

I agree with Abrupt 100%.  If these people really wanted a job they wouldn't be out there trying to take from someone else.  Where do they think the jobs come from?  The companies that are being taxed to death and regulated to death are closing down or moving overseas.  Gee I wonder why!!

You can get even more of an understand of how these people think when you realize that they want to punish companies that leave...and that seems rather petty and vindictive to me.  I think that most of them are under the odd impression that these companies actually take money from them somehow.  I am not sure how people get to think that way but quite possibly it comes from political rhetoric or even more likely their own ignorance and ineptness.

[Tresbn00]

The ninety nine percent also use more of the country's resources and federal aid programs than the one percent.  The one percent aren't using food stamps, medicare/medicaid, welfare, unemployment, workmen's compensation, planned parenthood, or public schools.  The one percent are, generally, creating more opportunity for the ninety nine percent.  As far as the tax rates for today being the same as they were in the seventies: the income is all in direct proportion.  There are less federally subsidized programs than there were back in the seventies but that is because people took advantage of them and politicians used them for their own gain.

[eman27]

I hope it ends soon because this country is already in shambles.  If something doesn't happen soon then we will surely sink to unprecedented levels in the  world from a competitive stand point.  But more importantly, we will see a true revolution because people like us aren't gonna go for it for too much longer. 

[jaymz462]

So basically you say the fault lies with the government.  You hint at a fear of us becoming communistic.  You then say you side with the communists and are in direct opposition to the capitalists.  I don't understand you, instead of rightfully blaming the government for its abuses and intrusions you blame hardworking Americans for their efforts.  Virtually all of the fault with the economy right now lies with the socialistic aspects of our government and its continuing hunger to intrude in our lives and dictate our every action -- instead of blaming and holding them accountable you instead focus on the few Americans who have enough ingenuity to still thrive under such constraints.

That is utter and complete BS.  The economy's in the tank because of things like 1) the Bush tax cuts 2) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3) the criminals on Wall Street taking irresponsible risks and blowing the economy up.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

[Abrupt]

So basically you say the fault lies with the government.  You hint at a fear of us becoming communistic.  You then say you side with the communists and are in direct opposition to the capitalists.  I don't understand you, instead of rightfully blaming the government for its abuses and intrusions you blame hardworking Americans for their efforts.  Virtually all of the fault with the economy right now lies with the socialistic aspects of our government and its continuing hunger to intrude in our lives and dictate our every action -- instead of blaming and holding them accountable you instead focus on the few Americans who have enough ingenuity to still thrive under such constraints.

That is utter and complete BS.  The economy's in the tank because of things like 1) the Bush tax cuts 2) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3) the criminals on Wall Street taking irresponsible risks and blowing the economy up.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Tax cuts never harm the economy, only government spending does -- your claim would be like me saying "by not robbing my neighbor I am losing money".  Yes the wars cost money, but the military also costs money to operate even when not in war so you must figure the difference.  The military is an enumerated responsibility of the government and it has to be maintained at a level capable of dealing with threats.  What criminals on Wall Street?  I know there are some but can you name any?  The real criminals are in the government and they are the only ones that can expose us to this level of economic risk.  They have done it with all the damned social programs that steal the majority of our money in the form of taxes.  These are things that are not enumerated powers of the federal government and they only put us at risk as is obvious from the current mess.  The bail outs were also a form of socialism and had nothing at all to do with capitalism and the companies and banks should have been allowed to fail.

[mardukblood2009]

I don't agree with the 99.9%. Somewheres along the line everyone has sure got their priorities screwed up that's all I can say. I think the bottom line is people are lazy and they expect other people to do the things that really need to be done. My question is who is ever going to do the real work that needs to be done and it certainly is not going to be the people who keep getting elected that's for sure. 

[jaymz462]

So basically you say the fault lies with the government.  You hint at a fear of us becoming communistic.  You then say you side with the communists and are in direct opposition to the capitalists.  I don't understand you, instead of rightfully blaming the government for its abuses and intrusions you blame hardworking Americans for their efforts.  Virtually all of the fault with the economy right now lies with the socialistic aspects of our government and its continuing hunger to intrude in our lives and dictate our every action -- instead of blaming and holding them accountable you instead focus on the few Americans who have enough ingenuity to still thrive under such constraints.

That is utter and complete BS.  The economy's in the tank because of things like 1) the Bush tax cuts 2) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3) the criminals on Wall Street taking irresponsible risks and blowing the economy up.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Tax cuts never harm the economy, only government spending does -- your claim would be like me saying "by not robbing my neighbor I am losing money".  Yes the wars cost money, but the military also costs money to operate even when not in war so you must figure the difference.  The military is an enumerated responsibility of the government and it has to be maintained at a level capable of dealing with threats.  What criminals on Wall Street?  I know there are some but can you name any?  The real criminals are in the government and they are the only ones that can expose us to this level of economic risk.  They have done it with all the damned social programs that steal the majority of our money in the form of taxes.  These are things that are not enumerated powers of the federal government and they only put us at risk as is obvious from the current mess.  The bail outs were also a form of socialism and had nothing at all to do with capitalism and the companies and banks should have been allowed to fail.

I dunno, seems Bush's tax cuts are kind of hurting the economy.  Did you bother to look at that graph? 

I'll agree that the banks should've failed.  But since they own the government, that wasn't going to happen.  Privatize the profits, socialize the risks.

[Gerianne]

I am reading Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined". He gives very thorough and  straight forward analysis on many important issues we face in America. We have many unnecessary programs and institutions set up. Government has gotten too big and is interfering with our liberty.

[Abrupt]

So basically you say the fault lies with the government.  You hint at a fear of us becoming communistic.  You then say you side with the communists and are in direct opposition to the capitalists.  I don't understand you, instead of rightfully blaming the government for its abuses and intrusions you blame hardworking Americans for their efforts.  Virtually all of the fault with the economy right now lies with the socialistic aspects of our government and its continuing hunger to intrude in our lives and dictate our every action -- instead of blaming and holding them accountable you instead focus on the few Americans who have enough ingenuity to still thrive under such constraints.

That is utter and complete BS.  The economy's in the tank because of things like 1) the Bush tax cuts 2) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3) the criminals on Wall Street taking irresponsible risks and blowing the economy up.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Tax cuts never harm the economy, only government spending does -- your claim would be like me saying "by not robbing my neighbor I am losing money".  Yes the wars cost money, but the military also costs money to operate even when not in war so you must figure the difference.  The military is an enumerated responsibility of the government and it has to be maintained at a level capable of dealing with threats.  What criminals on Wall Street?  I know there are some but can you name any?  The real criminals are in the government and they are the only ones that can expose us to this level of economic risk.  They have done it with all the damned social programs that steal the majority of our money in the form of taxes.  These are things that are not enumerated powers of the federal government and they only put us at risk as is obvious from the current mess.  The bail outs were also a form of socialism and had nothing at all to do with capitalism and the companies and banks should have been allowed to fail.

I dunno, seems Bush's tax cuts are kind of hurting the economy.  Did you bother to look at that graph? 

I'll agree that the banks should've failed.  But since they own the government, that wasn't going to happen.  Privatize the profits, socialize the risks.

Yes I looked at the graph, but you cannot count "money not stolen" as an expense or a loss and that is exactly what that graph does.  The government doesn't generate any money other than what it steals from us and therefore it should not be spending any money other than what it is rightfully authorized to steal/take from us (taxes for defense/roads and some other stuff but not all these socialists programs that is the majority of government spending).  Again to my theft analogy: I can rob all of my neighbors every month and use that money for a new car/home but if I were to decide to reduce the amount I stole from them I think it would be quite foolish of me to blame that as the reason for my financial troubles instead of the fact that I took a loan out on a car/home that I couldn't afford in the first place.

[diala84]

I saw an interesting video about how income range has much more to do with inequality than how much you make in general. It said for instance that Japan and Norway had very different methods for achieving a smaller income range. In Norway there is heavy taxation on those that make more money and very good benefits that make up for the low income workers. This evens out the income gap. However in Japan everyone has very similar wages from the beginning with low tax rates. Both methods have improved quality of life in those countries. The US is considered to have the largest income discrepancy with the poor earning much less than the rich with no real way to bring the two sides closer together and with the disappearance of the middle class we are farther from wage equality than every before. The presentation was able to show that mortality rates, teen pregnancy and other negative social factors were more common in places with higher wage differences and less in countries that had lower wage differences. This may not show causality but at least it seems somewhat related although there may be other factors that influence it.

So I do think that wage inequality is not fair and it hurt our society. It doesn't make sense that the CEOs make so much more when they rely on everyone below them to do their job (sometimes with poor working conditions, no benefits and minimum wage). Why do they get large benefit packages, retirement and bonuses when they have employees under them barely making ends meet. I'm not saying there isn't more responsibility involved in being a CEO or that all workers should get paid the same rate. Companies rely on the masses and that 99% to stay in business they should realized that taking away the ability to purchase goods and services not only hurts the company it hurts everyone. The free market system can work it just needs less greed and power on top.      

[hawkeye3210]

So basically you say the fault lies with the government.  You hint at a fear of us becoming communistic.  You then say you side with the communists and are in direct opposition to the capitalists.  I don't understand you, instead of rightfully blaming the government for its abuses and intrusions you blame hardworking Americans for their efforts.  Virtually all of the fault with the economy right now lies with the socialistic aspects of our government and its continuing hunger to intrude in our lives and dictate our every action -- instead of blaming and holding them accountable you instead focus on the few Americans who have enough ingenuity to still thrive under such constraints.

That is utter and complete BS.  The economy's in the tank because of things like 1) the Bush tax cuts 2) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 3) the criminals on Wall Street taking irresponsible risks and blowing the economy up.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

That is a report on the deficit in the government’s budget and not a report on the economy as a whole.  One should not be mistaken for the other. 

[PMZ908]

lol did anyone see the southpark episode on this topic last week?

[bulkkash]

 :BangHead:I used to protect the 1 %, and that is my shame. But I was young and dumb and did not know they were selling the 99% down the river, I will not do that again.

[d1cheetah]

Use an equal tax rate for everyone... be it 15% or 18%, or whatever.  Quit giving businesses free money to hire people, and all the other incentives.  I worked in human resources the last 7 years, and I hired over 500 people each year.  Their jobs were short lived, high stress call center type jobs.  The company got more money in tax incentives for hiring people than they did keeping good employees.  Then these same employees keep falling back into the unemployment roles.  It's a never ending gimmick that promotes the corporate wealth over the working American.  Get rid of the freebies to corporations and start holding large companies accountable for their high unemployment rates and quit making it profitable for companies to hire daily when they simply use excuses to fire within a few months to keep hiring for more free government money.

[mawhite63]

I don't know... living is challenging whether you are the 1% or the 99%.

Really?

Goldman Sachs paid its top five executives a total of $69.6 million in cash and stock last year....

El Paso CEO Douglas Foshee is in line for exit pay of $91 million...

Ford paid CEO Alan Mulally more than $26.5 million in salary and stock compensation last year....

Total pay for Comcast CEO Roberts increased 14% to $31.1 million in 2010, while his No. 2, Steve Burke, received $34.7 million in compensation last year.

And these companies are laying off Americans, so the whole "job creators" argument doesn't work. So, exactly what challenges does someone who earns 26.5 million a year face?

More executive pay from the Wall St Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/executive-pay.html