When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Obama adopts that same straw man so often I’m surprised he’s still available for you, Cary.
It is NOT a choice between ALL or NOTHING.
It is a choice between stifling to the point where nothing can happen (Obama’s option) or being reasonably regulated so business can thrive and people can have jobs (Republican’s option).
Cary: Actually, Corporations running a country after buying out politicians who eliminate laws to regulate them is a far cry from Capitalism. I’m not sure what to call it, but it’s not that…
…snip…
Yeah, ’cause deregulating has worked SO WELL….
The flaw in the thinking here, Cary, is that assuming all regulations are good, and all deregulations are bad. This blanket view simply doesn’t fly.
i.e., were the regulations imposed on the GSE’s to ease credit requirements in 1999 “good” regulation? Or that their derivatives literally doubled between 2000 and 2001 as a way to manage the housing bubble? The volume of new regulations spewing out daily from the still unfinished Dodd-Frank has proven to already put a crimp in economic growth. The same with O’healthcare. The EPA.
This is not to suggest that deregulation is always good, or that regulations are always bad. Instead I merely point out that your mindset, generically stating that deregulation is the cause of all Wall Street evil, is historically ill-perceived and indicates that you place unwarranted faith in Congress and unelected regulators as being omnipotent and economic gurus.
I might also remind you that “Wall Street” is not some token fat, rich, heterosexual white guy. It is comprised of all Americans vested in pensions, 401Ks or individual mutuals and stocks by choice. To attack Wall Street is no different than attacking your local firemen or law enforcement, who benefit when Wall Street does well, and lose their shirts when it doesn’t. The same goes for the blanket demonization of “corporations”, who are shareholders of all types of citizens.
This “Occupy Wall Street” movement is a hard core socialist agenda. Which becomes more ironic when they mourn Steve Jobs… capitalist entrepreneur, and not much of a charitable man personally… while demanding the demise of the so-called fat cats They are simply a bunch of confused types, all wanting, not getting, and not knowing how to get it except by legal seizure from others. One need only look at the organizers behind this movement to clearly see the agenda and goals… which is the fundamental change in the American governmental structure, as founded. That doesn’t mean that all participants are on the same page, as it is probably a mixture in the crowds. But truthfully, from the interviews I’ve seen of the protestors, and their property destruction and aggressive “protesting”… as well as the penchant for ignoring the permit laws for the organizing… I’m not seeing many that have a brain cell available to rub up with a second. It is this mentality that the organizers take advantage of portray “strength” of convictions for a dubious cause at best.
Larry W: Nan or someone said that Obama has “managed” the current recession more poorly than any President, going back ages. The best thing which happened to the GOP was McCain losing the last election. There are systemic things wrong with the economy that no President or government can really fix.
I’ll agree with Obama being the best thing that happened… not necessarily to the GOP, but to the nation at large. It has brought the unspoken political divide over a Euro-socialist America to the forefront in a big way. Now, with a sample viewing under the Dem heavily dominated Congress since 2007, combined with taking the WH in 2009, the utopia they promise ain’t looking so good. This slowed path to a heavy welfare state, that has been advancing since FDR, wasn’t as in your face as it is now under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Can’t ignore the camel in the tent anymore.
But I will partially agree, and disagree, with the other two somewhat related comments… that Obama has mismanaged the recession more poorly, and that there are limitations to what federal government can do. While there are, indeed, limitations, there are certainly things government can do that merely throws fuel on the fire… and that this Congress and Obama have done without abandon. Mostly what government can do is to back out, pull out some of the onerous regulations that prohibit growth, and allow time for the free market to correct. They have done exactly the opposite, which has slowed the economy, extended the housing crisis, and handicapped growth with regulations created by Dodd Frank, O’healthcare and the EPA..
But then, I disagree with Nan G’s characterization that the GOP would have done most or everything right were they in power. I don’t see that as even possible…. most especially examining their behavior even today. In fact, Obama’s presidency has delivered a very strong lesson to the GOP as well. Obama accelerated the path to Euro-socialism while the GOP always took baby steps. That was the only difference. This surge towards Euro-welfare, and actively pursuing a declining military and economic power, has proven the foolhardiness of the quest for the US. Needless to say, simply a glance at the status of the Euro-socialist nations today is a perfect example of it’s ultimate failure – both economically and socially.
This brings me to something that you have now suggested twice, Larry… that the US tear up the founder’s Constitutional structure of government, and goes the path of merry ol’ England in one party parliamentary power. You think this is the answer to political gridlock.
I would like to point out that we’ve had something very close to “parliamentary” power since 2007 and 2009. Prior to that it was flipped to the GOP between 1996 and 2006. Neither has been a success story, and instead the onerous and unwise regulations perpetuated, and the spending increased… mostly due to the downhill snowball known as the entitlements… another Democrat “success” story.
I think the difference between you and I is that you see political gridlock.. which has been in existence since our founding… as a detriment. I see it as a healthy way to prevent wrong headed directions. Indeed, in the past 80 years, I think we have had not enough political gridlock, as some very ill thought programs have sailed thru with the rubber stamp of both political parties.
Very nice to hear from you, Mata. Let me make it clear, I’m not against Wall Street as a whole, nor am I against those who are successful and wealthy. We do need and benefit from our financial sector. My work has put me in contact with some of the most wealthy and successful people in the country. Most are consistently warm, respectful and generous to me. My problem is with those who buy the political system who cater to their interests, and with leaders who play along with the game because it keeps them employed – nearly all of them. I think most Americans are on the same page with that, it’s not about left vs right. The protests downtown are about exactly that, not the Socialist agenda many on the outside seem to believe. Nobody (at least not most of us – there are always some unreasonables… ) is looking for a handout, and certainly not the handout the banks have received with OUR money. The news reporting about one guy taking a crap on a police car gets ratings and sells papers, but it’s hardly an accurate portrayal of what is happening down there. It’s a call for accountability and responsibility. Your side AND my side have been calling for a revolution for some time now. This is it.
Cary: My problem is with those who buy the political system who cater to their interests, and with leaders who play along with the game because it keeps them employed – nearly all of them. I think most Americans are on the same page with that, it’s not about left vs right. The protests downtown are about exactly that, not the Socialist agenda many on the outside seem to believe.
Cary, the organizers from the protests include union leaders and organizations… or, as you prefer to describe them as “leaders who play along with the game because it keeps them employed” and also “those who buy the political system who cater to their interests.” Doesn’t this strike you as a bit muddled to praise the OWS organizations who are exactly those whom the protestors are supposed to be protesting?
This should serve as an embarrassment to one of the sundry organizers, US Day of Rage.. ironically the same rallying cry of Bill Ayers Weathermen back in the 60s. Day of Rage hates “corporations” too, but doesn’t mind union thuggery and money influencing Congress and politicians. They call our government “illegitimate”. hummmm But they sure don’t mind hitching their wagon to cyber terrorists of powerful unions, do they? I guess they are just selective about those “with influence” they approve of… all while using the benefits of “big evil corporations”, like Twitter, iPhones, computers, etal to destroy the same..
I’m afraid this OWS is exactly that… right vs left. Or in this case, it’s right/moderate vs *extreme* left. Maybe you should take a closer look at their website and closed fist of power logo used. This is a symbol used by the left since the late 60s as a sign of militancy and rebellio,. utilized by the United States Communist Party, the Students for a Democratic Society , and the Black Panther Party for Self-defense.
I had to laugh with the “history” site of the clenched fist I linked, as they tried to portray it as a symbol used for the 2009 Taxpayers March on Washington. However HuffPo has plenty of photos from that 2009 march, and nary a clenched fist in sight. I will agree there are some very offensive signs there, tho. But no overt symbols of militancy, nor organizers that can be tied to hard left progressive/socialist agendas as is done here.
Of course, the name – Occupy Wall Street – itself came from Soros funded rag, Adbusters. This rag, pure anti-consumerist, anti-semite and proudly using culture jamming, condemns agendas while pushing forth one of it’s own… and it ain’t for the masses.
We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.
That’s funny.,.. seems the way “information flows” works well enough for their organizing, doesn’t it? Perhaps that’s because they’d prefer to restrict the way information flows.
In fact, why don’t you read about some of the key players in OWS…. all hard core, unapologetic progressive/socialists who unabashed call for American Revolution.
While you would like to see what you want to see, and attach some glorious lofty cause to this, you are closing your eyes to the agenda and goal of the organizers themselves.. those who have no compunction using those who don’t research their compadres, to give impression of power in numbers. Mostly, it’s a collection of utter dupes, attracted to feel good slogans.
This is *all* about right/moderate vs *hard* left.
Helene
12 years ago
The Occupy Wall Street people need to take a job … any job. They need, like the rest of us, to start at the bottom of the totem pole and work their way up.
They may believe that they should have large salaries and work in jobs that make them fulfilled, however, that may not happen. When someone hires someone else, they need the employee to earn enough to pay their salary and benefits. Someone with a degree in a soft area can’t generate enough income to an employer to justify their salary.
The colleges have been scamming these people. Lots of degrees are useless. I told my kids to get a college degree in a useful area. They are both working and making more than their peers. People I know with soft degrees are not working, or are not working in the area they studied.
If you want a job… get a skill. Dentists, plumbers, lab technicians, nurses, teachers, electricians and other people with the ability to work with their hands, will have work.
Liberty60
12 years ago
The “Hard core” leftists are to the progressive movement what the Birchers and Klan are to the Tea Party.
There are Occupy movements rising up all over America- do you really imagine that they are all formed and populated by “Hard core” leftists? The Left, if such a thing exists anymore, would be ecstatic to have such a following!
I am helping organizing an Occupy event here in Orange County, CA. Our organizing leadership is mostly working professionals, with a smattering of college students. We do have one (1) student who describes himself as a socialist, so you can use that if you want.
No, we are not agitating for the destruction of capitalism, no we don’t envy the wealthy.
What angers us, and motivates us, is the realization that we live in a polarized economy, with all the economic and political power concentrated at the top 1%.
We don’t have “capitalism” in America, we have a 3rd World corrupt oligarchy, crony capitalism version of amarket economy.
All the various and sundry causes- environment, labor, civil rights, etc.- all stem from the fact that our democracy is being hijacked by well-connected banks and corporations, to the detriment of the people.
You can ignore the scraggly college students, ignore the tie-dyed radicals all you want to, but more and more, the Occupy movement is made up of middle aged middle class professionals like me who say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Liberty60, I’m quite sure there are some that aren’t necessarily hard core left/progressive socialists. No populous movement is ever a one size fits all. However before I show up at rallies, I sure like to know the leaders of the talking points, and in this case you wouldn’t find me lending my voice to their slogans of national disgruntlement.
But I do find it interesting you you seize upon that top 1% bit. We’ve gone over that in the past here, and you may want to check out some historical figures of wealth concentration and the nuances of that phrasing in my comment/charts #126 on that thread. Fact is, save depressions/recessions, the concentration of wealth in the top 1% hasn’t fluctuated much since the 20s. So much for the decline into… how was it you called it?… a hijacking by “well-connected banks and corporations, to the detriment of the people”. During depressions/recessions, the amount of wealth held declined because they, of course, lost their shorts. These days, since a high concentration of average job blow workers are also invested in Wall Street as corporate shareholders, pensioners and funds holders, they also lose their shorts. It’s only that they possibly have less to lose in the amount of zeros that follows their invested amounts. But $100 to one man may be the equivalent of $1 mil to another in personal fiscal impact.
As far as wealth concentration, I’d argue otherwise to that “detriment of the people” bit. As of 2011, the top 1% held about 32% of the wealth. The bottom 50%… coincidentally about the same number of households that do not pay any taxes at all… held about 1-2% of the wealth. Flipping that around, that means that 49% of American control the majority – or 64-65% – of the wealth. And much of that can be attributed to the increase of average Americans being able to also participate in investment holdings via pensions and 401K as part of their employment. Unfortunately, most of these “wealth” concentration statistics don’t actually examine holdings other than income, so it’s rather arguing over the arbitrary and vague.
There is also the reality that history has proven that socialist or communist style redistribution also creates a serious wealth inequity, with an even smaller percentage of elite privileged controlling the power and wealth. The pointed difference is that, in the American system, anyone can break that barrier… a prime example could be the revered icon, Steve Jobs, starting out in a garage on his path to evil corporate wealth. In a communist or socialist society, that opportunity is stripped away.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to portray yourself as a “moderate” conservative, but I’m sure not buying it with the language you use. Strikes me that you and your other local OWS organizers, if not taking advantage of your local union thugs, are simply disgruntled liberals and progressives engaging in more of the same lip service about wealth redistribution via government control.. as has been done for decades. You can’t be complaining about the power and influence of “the wealthy” when you utilized those like the unions, who are no different in wielding their power and funds absconded from working professionals than pharma or financial lobbyists. It comes down to this.. there are those you approve of wielding power, and those you don’t. I guess it all depends upon if you believe what they are lobbying for benefits you.
@Helene: I have three good jobs that require skill (all seasonal, so I’m covered for the year – two of them freelance), was among the first of my peers under contract to receive a promotion, am pursing and work in a career that mostly requires skill (although many who aren’t do get work), am learning a new skill, pay taxes, vote, and participate as a citizen in this Democracy. I’m one of the people you’re referring to. Please don’t decide who I am based on what the media tells you.
Wow Cary… a few leaps to bizarre assumptions there.
I oppose what the leadership of this movement is attempting to achieve, yes. It is overt avocation of rebellion against this nation as founded, pushing for Euro-socialist wealth redistribution and concentration of more power in the central government. I do not oppose their right to protest…. however imbecile most appear to be when a camera is trained on their mugs.
I have engaged in a few acts of civil disobedience myself. Then again, so does everyone who doesn’t bother to buckle up their seat belt, or use a wireless headset for their cell phones while driving in certain states. But I most *certainly* oppose thuggish behavior that engages in property destruction (i.e. too many of these protestors, those in WI, the Seattle int’l protests in the past etal), and threats of bodily harm, (aka the Longview, WA union protestors). ’tisn’t any better here in Portland, where they were permitted to march without a permit, occupy a park illegally, tag private property, vandalize a police car, and involve themselves in sexual assaults. But Portland has one law for conservatives, and another for what makes Portland not-so-uniquely “weird”.
I’m not an “all or nothing” kind of person, so you should not take my commentary as such.
More on the irony, Cary… and in your back yard. Evidenly interrupting the normal business flow in the Big Apple in the middle of a double dip recession via “occupation” of Zuccotti Park, but were planning on doing the same to both Battery Park and Washington Square.
Example of the chutzpah?
“We’re tired of other people controlling — or thinking they control — our lives and our livelihoods,” said Kristin Thompson, a 22-year-old pre-school teacher and one of 100 protesters on Saturday in downtown Mobile, Alabama.
And their “occupation” is what, other than affecting others’ lives and livelihoods? But I guess that doesn’t count, does it?
INRE the thrust of the organization… no Tea Party, who gets permits and protests according to laws… this group.
Protest organizers said the attempt to enter the museum on the National Mall was part of the Occupy D.C. antiwar demonstrations that began Thursday on the 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan war.
“Along with the Occupy Wall Street movement, it represents an upswell of people taking to the street around the country to demand social and economic justice as well as an end to the immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” organizers said in an e-mail sent to Reuters.
…snip…
Participants said they had been summoned via social network Internet sites, labor organizers, liberal website MoveOn.org and members of the local Green Party.
Skills acquired are worth more then the skills themselves.
They are proof of the willingness and ability to learn.
Resumes tell a story between the lines.
Lots of these dopes and dopers on our streets protesting have majoring in work-avoidance for years.
A few years back, when Japan had its meltdown, we learned that the Japanese and American workers had unrealistic expectations of getting one job (career) and holding it for life.
Now, the new reality is that a worker might switch jobs, even career types a dozen or more times in his working life.
Who has the upper hand?
Womyn’s studies/black studies/ethnic studies majors?
Or engineering /nursing/mathematics/chemistry majors?
You all know the answer.
So do the fools occupying and peeing all over public property.
Liberty60
12 years ago
@MataHarley:
Your reply to my post was interesting-
the first part was fact-based, an argument we could probably both find worthwhile.
Your second, however, moves into almost comic territory.
I pointed out that many in this movement are middle aged middle class middle managers, working professionals, regular suburban PTA and soccer moms and dads.
No, you argue, that simply isn’t true- we are disgruntled liberals, malcontents, and imply that we are in no way representative of mainstream America.
I state that we are seeking a rebalancing of economc and political power, to fit within the market-based economy.
Oh no, you insist, what we really want is a Soviet-style Bolshevik society, and deliver a lecture about how horrible such a thing would be.
A lecture, of course, that I myself delivered to my leftist friends back in the 1970’s when I was a campus Republican, and eager advocate for Reagan.
Liberty60: Your second, however, moves into almost comic territory.
I pointed out that many in this movement are middle aged middle class middle managers, working professionals, regular suburban PTA and soccer moms and dads.
No, you argue, that simply isn’t true- we are disgruntled liberals, malcontents, and imply that we are in no way representative of mainstream America.
I state that we are seeking a rebalancing of economc and political power, to fit within the market-based economy.
Oh no, you insist, what we really want is a Soviet-style Bolshevik society, and deliver a lecture about how horrible such a thing would be.
Speaking of comical… what part of my comment back did you miss. Quoting verbatim:
I’m quite sure there are some that aren’t necessarily hard core left/progressive socialists. No populous movement is ever a one size fits all.
…snip…
However before I show up at rallies, I sure like to know the leaders of the talking points, and in this case you wouldn’t find me lending my voice to their slogans of national disgruntlement.
There is no denying that the organizers and social media pushers for the attendees are coming from the left, the progressive left and the socialist left. If you are not part of this particular political flavor, it’s hard to believe when you use the same “top 1%” and “hijacking” by those evil “banks and corporations” complaints. Protest all you want, however you sound like their echo.
Liberty60
12 years ago
@Helene:
“If you want a job… get a skill. Dentists, plumbers, lab technicians, nurses, teachers, electricians and other people with the ability to work with their hands, will have work. ”
No, this is factually untrue.
I am a middle manager at an architecture firm, and personally laid off half a dozen highly educated, highly skilled wonderful emkployees back in 2008, when there simply wasn’t any work. No work, regardless of how skilled they were.
My resume is such that during the heydey in 2006, I was being recruited and offered signing bonues, company cars, and so on.
Today I cling to a modest position, terrified of the next blip of the banking world radar.
But meanwhile, I witnessed the Wall Street banks that turned a cautious and carefully managed industry into a wild casino, and get their gambling losses paid off by the taxpayer, while the rest of us are given stern lectures about fiscal prudence.
@MataHarley: Making no assumptions, just asking questions. I’m sure I don’t agree with every individual protesting, or condone every act; I’m not an all or nothing person, either. I mean, there are over 3000 people down there! Like I said before, the media will report what’s good for the media. But you know how I feel and what I think, and it’s hardly pushing for socialism or anarchy. The majority are there for the reasons I’ve described. It’s just not sensational to report what most people agree with, and sensation is what “sells papers.” I know this isn’t news to you. Heck, they weren’t even covering it until it got way too big to ignore.
Nan G
12 years ago
@Cary:
Cary, if what you say is true: there are over 3,000 people down there, we have a serious problem.
Over 700, nearly 800 arrests in three weeks among 3,000 people?
What is that, proportion-wise?
~25%?
No wonder Obama wants to make it illegal for a prospective employer to even ask the question: have you ever been arrested.
It is the ONLY WAY these idiots will ever have a chance to be employed.
I admit our own educational system has done its level best to infantalize American young adults.
Some people have not grown up and taken care of their own needs even at age 40.
What’s another tantrum to these babies-in-adult-bodies?
They do it all the time.
@Nan G: First of all, it’s over 3000 on any given day. Not everyone goes down there every day (as we do have jobs and responsibilities), and not everyone is camping. Your 700 figure is from a single incident, and there are conflicting reports on what exactly happened. And as John Stewart so humorously pointed out, all of these arrests were for misdemeanors, while the Tea Party namesake is taken from the most celebrated act of civil disobedience in the building of our nation, which was a felony!
Here’s the clip again, in case you missed it before…
Cary, please… you are equating today’s civil disobedience by a bunch of neer-do-wells, leaving debris in their path and destroying public property while interfering with other citizens daily lives with the civil disobedience of the American Revolution?
So far the union thugs in WI defaced public property, and sundry OWS protestors have done the same elsewhere. Tell us what similar damage has been done by Tea Party protests, if you please… instead of evoking the actions in the American Revolution.
Oh, please!
They are almost all the SAME 3,000 – X,000 every day!
And, yes, they disobeyed the law and got arrested on the bridge.
BUT, there have also been nearly 100 OTHER arrests.
Nearly every day these marches end with police and marchers clashing, pepper spray and ARRESTS.
And, this modern iteration of the TEA party (the Taxed Enough Already Party) has had NO ARRESTS with hundreds of thousands of attendees.
We (TEA Partiers) leave the park or beach or other forum cleaner than when we arrived, too.
Nobody has to come along and hose it down from all the urine and papers left everywhere.
But they sure have to clean up after the OWS.
We had an OWS demonstration in Long Beach on Sat.
What a mess!
Our marathon was today through some of the same ares.
Cleaners were scrambling!
And I read that only 90 people made that mess!
Amazing!
@MataHarley: I’m sorry you think of me and my friends as “neer-do-wells”… Of course, throughout history, those who stood up for what was right were always regarded the same way… until they won. Then their causes were championed by the very same folks who opposed them.
And we who pay more than our share in percentage of taxes while our leaders fail to represent our interests… yup, that’s pretty much the comparison I’m making.
Cary: I’m sorry you think of me and my friends as “neer-do-wells”…
Are you saying you left debris in your path, destroyed public property while interfering with other citizens’ daily lives, Cary? Because I’m pretty sure that’s what my entire sentence said. Shall I repeat it for you?
Cary, please… you are equating today’s civil disobedience by a bunch of neer-do-wells, leaving debris in their path and destroying public property while interfering with other citizens daily lives with the civil disobedience of the American Revolution?
So if you did indeed destroy public property and left debris in your wake… yup, you’re a neer-do-well.
I’m sorry you think of me and my friends as “neer-do-wells”
Is this OWS protester, who was caught in the act while taking a poo on a NYC police car, one of your friends? Or is he a “neer-do-well”?
How about the people who stormed the Air and Space Museum yesterday…slamming a guard up against a wall and holding him there…prompting a second guard to mace them…are they your friends? Or are they “neer-do-wells”?
How about the person who vandalized the police car in this picture:
Was that person one of your friends? Or was a person a “neer-do-well”?
How about this guy:
Is he one of your friends too? Or, is he a “neer-do-well”?
hahaha Scoll up! I’ve addressed your very question about, what? Three times in this thread alone? I guess three examples mean all three THOUSAND are taking shits on police cars! Your logic astounds me, Aye!
Excuse me, I have to finish this pizza so I’m ready for tomorrow..
The answers to your questions can be found in the comments I have already left in this thread, Aye. I have better things to do than patronize you by spelling it out for you in vain. The majority of the people down there are not represented by your cherry picked examples, yet they’ve been called many not-so-flattering things on this site. I’M among the people down there. Think what you will of me. I’m past caring. Heck, I don’t even know who you are! LOL
Wow! How prescient of you…except for the fact that the answers to my questions are not in your previous responses.
Of course, based on your past performances here, I didn’t really expect that you would confront the issue head on.
You wish to speak in vagaries about this group of 3,000 people attempting in vain to convince us that they’re your friends and that you know what their thoughts and motivations are.
Yet, when you’re confronted with the facts about what they’re really all about…well, frankly, you chicken out and run away leaving your small, childish facebook links and .png files behind in your wake.
Oh, and as far as what I think of you…. well, you shouldn’t worry because I find you unworthy of any thought at all.
So little thought that you continue to address me? So little thought that you’ve recalled my “past performances” here when you and I haven’t communicated in oh… around six months? So little thought that you’ve managed to twist what I’ve actually said into something convenient to your “point”?
And yes, the answers to your questions were provided before you asked them. It’s not like you offered anything new…
So if you did indeed destroy public property and left debris in your wake… yup, you’re a neer-do-well.
Nope, haven’t done that. If that’s all you were saying, then I misread your meaning. Sorry ’bout that. Most of the liberal “hippies” also care about the environment, so I guarantee whatever mess is being left isn’t from those of us who care about what’s happening. Like I said to you before, and you indicated yourself, not every example is representative what’s really happening. I hope that in your clarification, you do see at least some legitimacy in what the non “neer-do-wells” are communicating. However, the kinds of crowds downtown would, by definition, interfere with some people’s activities. It’s New York, we’re used to it. Heck, I once worked at Macy’s, many years ago, during the Christmas season! Took me an hour to get to work AFTER I got off the subway!
I understand the message of the non neer-do-wells. That, however, doesn’t mean I agree with it. Contrary to your original statement that this isn’t about left or right, it is *all* about left and right… and it’s not the moderate left. Nor are their arguments credible when they blast power and influence in the beltway, when they are being used by powerful influences in the beltway like MoveOn.org and the unions. That is my point.
No problem, Cary. Won’t be the first time we’ve disagreed… LOL.
Time will tell what these OWS events lead to. I have very uneasy feeling about all of this, and I hope it’s wrong. Peaceful redress of grievances… assuming most of them have a clue what those grievances are…is well within our American culture and freedoms. This destruction of property and assault on the area businesses, however, is not a good harbinger. With the unions heavily involved… and their historic and current penchant for property destruction to make their point (i.e. both WI and Longview, WA)… it doesn’t look good on the “peaceful” angle. Crowds tend to get carried away with the emotions of the moment. And they very much want to appear “the victims” in the news. Unfortunately, this can make many in the crowd who, are as you and Liberty60 say, more genuine in the complaints the unwitting pawns in a larger game of political chess.
Actually, Corporations running a country after buying out politicians who eliminate laws to regulate them is a far cry from Capitalism. I’m not sure what to call it, but it’s not that…
I can actually understand a lot of the frustration, and I agree with parts of this. I had two houses before the bubble burst. I rented one and it provided a little extra income and some tax breaks. When the bubble burst, I could not rent that house for half of what the mortgage cost me. I ended up short selling it and working out a deal with BofA. Was BofA responsible for me losing that house? Yeah, to an extent, but I also knew what I was getting in to. It’s no different than owning a business. You pay your money and you take your chances.
I do have a question for the OWS folks and supporters though. What are banks and corporations supposed to do? If I had a business and congress told me I could no longer pursue a certain model that was profitable, should I just run in the red for the rest of my life? You hear Dick Durbin and Obama slamming Bank of America for this and that, and that they should fall in line because they took bailout money. BofA didn’t want to take bailout money. SecTres (under Bush) “pursuaded” them to abosord Merrill Lynch and take the money. Now the government which forced this on them is bashing them for doing what they were told was for the “good of the country?” Are you guys holding both parties responsible for this, the way the TEA party did? Are you mad at Pelosi for passing bills that effected all businesses except those she had a vested interest in? Are you mad at democrats that passed Obamacare but are letting their friends off with waivers?
The thing is, we don’t have corporatism, we have crony capitalism. And it’s on both sides, left and right. And Cary, I would occupy with you guys tomorrow if you called for a US representative to go to jail for every banker that goes as well. Why would you want to let the puppet master off the hook and just go after the puppets? Congress knew this was going to happen and allowed it to do so. The Bush administration even told them Fannie and Freddie were going to cause this to happen. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank called it a high-tech lynching. Those two, along with Chris Dodd need to be sharing a cell right along with every banker or CEO you get arrested.
How sad. I had hoped that the way Cary’s fellow liberals defended Polanski might have been the start of Cary facing reality. Instead Cary has gone the other way and gone deeper into pathological denial of reality. As seen here, Cary wants to demonize someone else while pretending they are the ultra-pure good guys, all for an ego stroke. To sum up Cary’s arguments-“We have good intentions.”
Further proof of the left’s disconnect.
Guess which President has raked in the most Wall Street bucks in a generation?
@Aqua: In short, YES! I totally agree with 99% of what you wrote, regarding who is responsible. At least with politicians, we do have a voice in the voting booth, though too many Americans don’t seem to use it enough. (Or simply pull the lever of the name they’ve heard most…)
@MataHarley: Those things concern me, too. I personally haven’t seen anything but peaceful demonstrations. If I were to see anything getting out of hand, it would be time to head home (or to a pub a bit further uptown…)
“Protestors are assembling in New York and around the country to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans.”
The DCCC email is one of the earliest expressions of support by an established Democratic campaigning organization.
Hard Right
12 years ago
Nan, they think this is a way to motivate their base and maybe even reverse the coming wipeout in Nov.
The funny thing is, the left has no idea that people don’t support what they are pushing for. People have some support/sympathy with the protestors until they learn what their demands are: GIMMIE YOUR MONEY! That just doesn’t resonate with most Americans.
@Hard Right: Then you at least agree with me regarding the bank bailouts then? Handing our tax dollars to those who those who screwed up the economy in an effort to make sure they don’t make things worse is bs, right? Especially when things don’t get much better for us… right? Like I said before, it’s both sides of the isle. You’re right about the Dems jumping on board in order to save face. Not many I personally know are falling for it. Hopefully we all get better choices soon…
Things we can also be doing/ doing instead if you’re not on board with the movement, but agree with the outrage:
Join a Credit Union.
If you don’t know where something came from, don’t buy it.
Shop at your small local stores.
Feel free to add…
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
“Occupy Wall Street” is just about undoing Reaganomics, which instituted supply side economics and promoted financial deregulation. Being opposed to Reaganomics is not exactly “Un-American.” George HW Bush called it “voodoo economics.” He was correct. Next to Marxism, itself, it’s about the most discredited economic theory in history (the concept that tax cuts at the top stimulate sufficient economic activity to pay for the lost revenues from the lower rates). Serious economists (including conservative economists) don’t believe this anymore. But we are still stuck with that which was wrought by Reagan and GW Bush.
We had an absolutely great country, when the rich payed a 91% marginal tax rate (Eisenhower years) and a 70% marginal tax rate (Kennedy through Carter) and when we had a stiff inheritance tax, which prevented the emergence of a “to the manor born” permanent upper class. Nobody is proposing a return to those tax rates, but now we have a 35% marginal rate and people scream that if it’s raised up to 39% they won’t be motivated to work anymore and that Obama is a Marxist promoting class warfare for proposing this. If you think I sound like a Marxist or if you think that Obama IS a Marxist, you should know that the American President who was, by far, the greatest champion of both progressive taxation and a steep inheritance tax was none other than GOP stalwart Theodore Roosevelt.
The “Occupy Wall Street” types are doing nothing more than promoting the All American ideals of Teddy Roosevelt, and I will be very proud to stand tall with those people, when I go down to “Occupy LA” later this week, to talk with the people there about their issues and motivations and, with my presence, register my support.
P.S. to John Galt, Antics, Aqua: Ball is in my court regarding replies to your analyses of effects of Reagan and Bush tax cuts on government debt. Still looking forward to doing this — hopefully relatively soon.
This is a friend of mine’s Facebook status, he’s more concise and to the point than wordy little me:
Piece of 99% wisdom 1) I don’t want YOUR money, 1%. I just want you to pay your fair share. Even if you paid a relevant amount in tax, that money would not go to ME directly. So go ahead and stop with that misinformation.
See we all use public roads, are served by the same police forces, fire departments, military, etc… these services have to be paid for. Asking those with money to pay a tad more than they have been instead of gouging beyond their means those who are struggling to feed their families, is pretty reasonable, IMHO, and doesn’t threaten our democracy.
Cary’s FB friend: Piece of 99% wisdom 1) I don’t want YOUR money, 1%. I just want you to pay your fair share. Even if you paid a relevant amount in tax, that money would not go to ME directly. So go ahead and stop with that misinformation.
Cary: See we all use public roads, are served by the same police forces, fire departments, military, etc… these services have to be paid for. Asking those with money to pay a tad more than they have been instead of gouging beyond their means those who are struggling to feed their families, is pretty reasonable, IMHO, and doesn’t threaten our democracy.
Now I’m really confused, Cary. You and the non neer-do-wells are supposedly railing against the bailout spending, but still looking to feed the out of control spending beast that you purport to despise. Transportation funds are supposedly allocated out of gas taxes, the federal income revenue taxes. So what make you so blind in faith as to assume increased revenue from the evil rich is going to places you want it to go by an irresponsible Congress (both parties)?
Nor is that increased revenue going to do one bit to “feed their families”.
All of this nonsense just boggles the mind… the cry for increased power and control by the federal government, which is in turn influenced by the agendas of lobbyists… which includes organizers of this OWS protest. i.e. the green enviros, unions, MoveOn.org, Soros, etc. Nothing about the complaints and their desired cures squares with any reality.
As far as the not paying their fair share, we’ve been thru how much of the tax burden is shouldered on this site so many times it makes one’s eyes roll back into their heads to think about having to do it yet again. It’s a popular populous class warfare slogan, Cary. Unfortunately, hasn’t got much foundation in reality. Whatever extra the government attempts to take from the new classification of who is wealthy will not bring down the debt, and will not discourage irresponsible spending that has been the Congressional mentality since the New Deal.
And I see Larry’s on his anti-Reagan tax tirade again. LOL Been there, done that Larry. As I’ve said before to you, Reagan’s tax policies evoked an improving economy. Obama’s has not. Clinton rode two bubbles in his era… lucky dog. I’ll take results of Reagan over rhetoric any day.
Larry, I forgot to mention. When you saunter on down to your LA OWS party, I’d be curious if you asked many of those there these questions:
1: How many are vested in mutuals, 401Ks, pension, or other shareholder stocks, including financials?
2: Why are they protesting their own profits?
Hard Right
12 years ago
1) Yes Cary, I too was against the bail outs
2) They say “fair share” but usually don’t say what is “fair”. That isn’t an accident because by fair they mean whatever THEY think should be paid for what they want. See, I understand what a liberal really means by “fair”.
3) People like myself think that those “fat cats” pay plenty.
4) I primarily blame the dems for screwing up the economy.
5) I’m hoping to help reform the GOP to get them to be the small government, pro-Constitution, voice of their constituents like they are supposed to be.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
Hi Mata,
What the protesters are complaining about is the fact that the top 1% have massively increased their wealth, since the dawn of supply side economics (the top 1% used to have 9% of the wealth, while today they have 24% of the wealth), at a time when middle class and below have back slid. The top 400 people in the country have as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000. The son or daughter of a mailman in the USA has a lesser probability of becoming rich in the USA than their counterparts in Denmark or Finland. There is now more student loan debt than credit card debt. With rare exceptions, Europe today is much more of a meritocracy than is the USA, in terms of educational opportunity and upward mobility.
As angry as I truly am about the defunding of public institutions on account of supply side tax policy, the gutting of the estate tax is even worse. It’s rapidly creating a permanent upper class and this is the antithesis of the American dream, which is rewarding initiative and enterprise.
Many/most of the protesters may not understand the economic forces in play, but it’s sort of like pornography. You may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.
Now I’m pretty darned sure that Reagan wasn’t around for you to abuse in the 20’s to the late 70s. Reality sucks, eh? LOL
And I sure hope you don’t advocate returning to the eras when the top 1% held less… you’ll note that they are associated with the depression/recession eras… i.e. FDRs and Carter’s most notably. But it sure seems the top 1% did much better under Clinton that you’d expect, eh? Inconvenient truth that the bottom 99% had it better under Reagan and Bush than Clinton and Obama.
Nan G
12 years ago
Hey!
Rep. Keith Ellison has a new variant of the broken window fallacy.
He makes the absurd claim that….
regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirements.
So, how many like that have there been?
So far, according to the Dems:
1. environmental regs create jobs,
2. food stamps create jobs,
3. illegal aliens create jobs,
4. high taxes create jobs,
5. a deficit economy creates jobs,
6. unemployment benefit operate as a stimulus,
7. trashing good running autos creates jobs.
Did I miss any of the Dems wonderful jobs programs?/
Hard Right
12 years ago
Larry, the estate tax tends to hurt the “little people” a lot more than the “fat cats” you are after. Just ask warren buffett and see how he gets even richer thanks to that absurd tax. Take a look at who gets hit hardest by it. For all your education you are the typical liberal economic illiterate. Your views on taxation are driven by ego and envy.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
Hi Mata (#102):
Firstly, let me acknowledge that you are absolutely correct regarding the wealth distribution and I was wrong. I had the correct numbers but was applying these correct numbers to the wrong piles of money (i.e. “wealth” as opposed to “income”).
The correct statement should have been that, pre-Reagan, the top 1% of the population had 9% of the income. Today, the top 1% of the population has 24% of the total income.
Of course, reducing income tax rates will have an immediate effect on income, while it will take years or decades for these effects on income to be translated into effects on total wealth, at the level of the top 1%.
While looking at data with regard to the effects of the Reagan/Bush tax cuts on the haves versus the have nots, please consider also this, and this, and this. (Or, if you are in a hurry, just click on the last one).
And that’s what “Occupy Wall Street” is all about.
Dang, Larry… you’re on a roll, guy with some of this stuff lately…. I’m gonna have to relabel you the “good humor” guy! LOL
But INRE the “wealth vs income” argument, again johngalt went thru that on the thread as well. Can’t remember if you were involved, but you may want to revisit the link I provided for other statistics on those nuances. Take, for instance, you last link (since I am multitasking and in a hurry). The graph only goes back to 1978, and doesn’t include historic figures since the New Deal era that I included. We already know that the “wealth” via Wolff statistics shows that the top 1% shows little variation over the decades.
But that brings me to the Business Insider graphs… who uses as a “source” a blogger, Afferent Input, of unknown credentials, and uses CBO data as his source. Do forgive me if I don’t consider the CBO and a blogger as the quintessential arbiter of accurate depiction of wealth over a genuinely critical economist, Edward Wolff (not to be confused with socialist professor, Richard Wolff, who was a speaker at the NY OWS on Oct 4th).
WTF?
But you are the one who has moved the goal posts INRE what we are talking about in wealth for the top 1%. I can understand that, since the facts sorta got in the way.
So let’s talk “income” vs “wealth” (whether net worth assets or liquid assets)… because as we went thru on that thread, more and more Americans are now also invested in that evil “Wall Street” who is under attack. That is “wealth” that is not considered part of the “income” statistics. More became homeowners in the past decades as well.
This left them subject to the same volatile market factors as those evil wealthy they so despise. Certainly if you want to hold up the lib/prog guru, Warren Buffet, as an example, he makes a pittance of about $100K annually. But that sure isn’t an accurate representation of his wealth. Buffett has figured out how to play the game, funneling his cash thru the lower capital gains. Thus why he’d love taxes to remain high… prevents competition from new billionaires and only the current billionaires stay wealthy.
And if you’d like to include real estate assets, the evil wealthy are suffering large amounts of devalued property because, of course, they are likely to own larger amounts of property. Additionally, the “net worth”.. whether via inclusive of liquid assets or not… has also fluctuated. Using liquidity the “poverty”, or absence of wealth, rises. Using net worth including not easily liquidated assets, the poverty level shrinks.
In a study by Wolff in 2004 … the same Edward Wolff as the source of the graph I provided above…and focusing on years between 1983 and 2001, revealed that the “asset poverty” using liquidity was at it’s lowest during 1983… those evil Reagan years. Liquid assets poverty peaked at it’s highest in 1995 during those glorious Clinton years, and only fell slightly by 2001. Kinda blows the mind, yes? So many seem to believe that the Clinton years were better to the lower percentile. Yet those stats in the graph I posted show exactly the opposite.
Wolff is actually advancing some your arguments with many of his stats…. but there are a few caveats obvious to those who actually get it. Other than a spattered sentence or two here and there in the report, what he does not do is explain how and why the debt of these “asset impoverished” happened. It was not his job to basically saythat so many more had the opportunity to be asset and income wealthy, and they blew it because… like Congress… they spend, spend, spend unwisely.
Our overall estimates of the level of asset poverty in the U.S. are shown in Table 2 for the years 1983-2001. As expected, the more inclusive measure of assets, that based on net worth, yields the lower poverty rates; the values range from a low of 22.4 percent in 1983 to 25.5 percent in 1998. Subsequent to the recession of the early-1980s, net worth poverty rose by about 2 percentage points by 1989, then fell slightly during the recession of the early-1990s, and again rose during the prolonged period of growth during the decade of the 1990s. By this standard, the level of asset poverty in 1998 is the highest level recorded over the 1983-2001 period. By 2001, net worth poverty had fallen to 24.5 percent..
When the liquid assets concept is used as the definition of assets, the asset poverty rate increases substantially. By this measure, asset poverty is lowest in 1983 at 33 percent, and reaches a peak of nearly 44 percent in 1995. From the low levels during the 1980s, liquid asset poverty increased substantially in the 1990s. Even at the end of the 1990s growth period, liquid asset poverty stood at nearly 40 percent; the rate fell slightly to about 37 percent by 2001.
For both measures, asset poverty at the end of the period equaled or exceeded both its 1983 level, and its level during the recession of the early-1990s. Interestingly, the time pattern of asset poverty rates does not closely reflect macroeconomic conditions, and does not parallel that of income poverty or median family income.
These findings on the trend in asset poverty over the period after 1983 are consistent with, and complementary to, estimates of the trend in wealth inequality reported by Wolff (2001) and D’Ambrosio and Wolff (2001). Our results indicate that the increase in wealth inequality over this period affected not only the wealthiest families, pulling them further from families with average levels of wealth, but also led to decreases in wealth among those with the least assets. By focusing the level and prevalence of asset poverty, we are able to identify the characteristics of those among the asset poor that have gained and lost position during this period of increased asset poverty and inequality.
Now, considering that net worth is based on all income, minus debt, what one should really be questioning is the wise use of increased wealth that was obtainable by medium households. In other words, using the common occurrence during the borrower abuses of the financial tools offered during the real estate boom, did they use their assets as an ATM/piggy bank, and frivolously spend the cash instead of making wise investments to increase/improve their assets?
After watching many manage both their cash and assets for a couple of decades, I have to say yes. Since we’ve already eliminated income statistics as being out of the norm, and we’ve also come to the realization that more and more Americans also can benefit from increased assets/investment income in the past two decades, what we really have is those drunk with what they considered easy money, and becoming more impoverished for their ignorance in managing the asset income. Certainly the public school system would benefit far more had they busted out sex education and tolerance classes, continued with mandatory PE, American history and added basic economic classes.
But the reality is it’s not the system’s fault for inequity in income, asset wealth or liquid wealth, Larry. It is the fault of individual responsibility in managing their income. We could certainly have a viable dialogue on whether the widespread ignorance is the fault of the public schools, or families, but is sure isn’t the system. Instead of using the results of a dumbed down society, bred on “stuff” (as George Carlin liked to call it) and professional consumerism/shoppers, blaming a perfectly adept system that offers opportunity to all who care to educate themselves to wise investment and entrepreneurship is a hyped up version of “never letting a crisis go to waste” in order to expand power of a supposedly benevolent central government.
This is driven home further when, on pg 16, Wolff discusses the differences between the asset poverty trends and the income trends. Or, as he notes:
Apparently, the gains in income experienced by the income poor during the economic growth period of the 1990s did not find its way into the holding of assets by the asset poor. This pattern is consistent with evidence on the low rates of saving by the poor, even when income is increasing.
So it all sorta all comes out in the wash, don’t you think? Opportunities and cash squandered are not the sign of a failed system, Larry. They are signs of consumers with too big of eyes for their bank account, and a lack of education, discipline… or both.
I’m glad you can figure out what OWS is all about… because the official, or non official, message sure can’t. Then again, trying to find someone in the crowd that can articulate a sentence that contains more than nouns and verbs is somewhat difficult. But as I see it, those that squandered, or did not take advantage of the system personally feel it more prudent to blame the system than take responsibility for self and their… even if not perceived.. ignorance in all things financial.
You can either give the government control to take care of the fiscally stupid, and punish everyone. Or you can educate the public so that they can better available themselves of a very good system that is open to all.
I vote for the latter. So you enjoy your compadres at your LA-OWS. I opt for better companionship myself.
Hard Right
12 years ago
Yet again Larry displays his envy and Regan era tax cut obsession.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
P.S. I’m presuming that most of the good folks here on F/A don’t watch Bill Maher, but here’s a cogent explanation of what the Occupy Wall Street “hippies” are so unhappy about:
Good reminder, Hard Right.
I had forgotten just how rich Warren Buffett got off of this.
Buffett has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets.
He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.
Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out.
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
Hi Hard. Grayson is simply trying to explain things from the point of view of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. I don’t present him as any sort of authority figure. It’s simply that the Occupy Wall Street people currently lack a spokesperson, as it is a totally bottom up sort of a movement, and I think that Grayson does a reasonably good job of distilling the grievances into a few bullet points.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
12 years ago
Hi Nan,
If the problem is that people are losing small family businesses to the estate tax, then just modify the law to take care of this problem. But this has nothing at all to do with Warren Buffett’s future estate tax bill. Or Donald Trump’s future estate tax bill. etc.
With regard to Warren Buffett profiting from the estate tax, what’s the problem? He’s playing by the rules.
Let me give you an example.
I think that the sport of triathlon is unfair. The swim should be longer than it currently is, relative to the bike and run. So I’ve been complaining about this for 25 years. But the next time I enter a triathlon, I’m not going to do two laps around the swim course, just because I think that this is the way it should be.
You play by the rules that currently exist, while you try to change the rules to what you think the rules should be.
There’s nothing at all hypocritical about this. Being hypocritical is when you catch someone breaking the rules and criticize him for doing this, all the while breaking the rules yourself.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Aqua
12 years ago
@ Larry
I think the argument of taxes has been pretty much beat to death. Maybe taxes do need to be raised, but how do we know that. For many conservatives, raising taxes is just feeding a government that has gone amok. Why would anyone want to give these idiots, (both sides by the way) any more money. They have proven they can’t take be proper stewards of the money they get now. Bailout money that went to political cronies, tax breaks for politically allied corporations, and a healthcare plan that was shoved down out throats and then waived for political friends. So why would conservatives be jumping on the bandwagon to give this government more money. I’ve seen a majority of conservatives state that they believe the tax structure should be overhauled, why don’t they start there? Then hold congress accountable for the money the money that is coming in before we start trying to see how much more they can spend when taxes are raised.
Piece of 99% wisdom 1) I don’t want YOUR money, 1%. I just want you to pay your fair share. Even if you paid a relevant amount in tax, that money would not go to ME directly. So go ahead and stop with that misinformation.
Here’s a piece of reality for the Facebook friend….
In 2008, the latest year for which data is available, the top 1% paid in 38.06% of total federal income tax recpts which means that the bottom 99% was only responsible for the remaining 61.94%.
The bottom 50% paid in only 2.7%.
Seems rather obvious to me who is not paying in their “fair share” especially if you want to evaluate things based on which group benefits most from gov’t structure and largesse.
@DrJohn:
Pwned
@Cary:
Re your #12 comment….
Obama adopts that same straw man so often I’m surprised he’s still available for you, Cary.
It is NOT a choice between ALL or NOTHING.
It is a choice between stifling to the point where nothing can happen (Obama’s option) or being reasonably regulated so business can thrive and people can have jobs (Republican’s option).
@Nan G:
Yeah, ’cause deregulating has worked SO WELL….
smh
(and I’m not defending Obama, he’s contributed to the problem himself.)
The flaw in the thinking here, Cary, is that assuming all regulations are good, and all deregulations are bad. This blanket view simply doesn’t fly.
i.e., were the regulations imposed on the GSE’s to ease credit requirements in 1999 “good” regulation? Or that their derivatives literally doubled between 2000 and 2001 as a way to manage the housing bubble? The volume of new regulations spewing out daily from the still unfinished Dodd-Frank has proven to already put a crimp in economic growth. The same with O’healthcare. The EPA.
On the flip side, the steady deregulation of the natural gas industry since 1978 has promoted competition and benefited consumers for pricing.
The deregulation of the airline industry back in 1978 resulted in the population taking trips by air doubling between 1978 and 1997. The same with the phone service deregulation back in 1996, leading to lower prices, better quality and more choices for consumers.
This is not to suggest that deregulation is always good, or that regulations are always bad. Instead I merely point out that your mindset, generically stating that deregulation is the cause of all Wall Street evil, is historically ill-perceived and indicates that you place unwarranted faith in Congress and unelected regulators as being omnipotent and economic gurus.
I might also remind you that “Wall Street” is not some token fat, rich, heterosexual white guy. It is comprised of all Americans vested in pensions, 401Ks or individual mutuals and stocks by choice. To attack Wall Street is no different than attacking your local firemen or law enforcement, who benefit when Wall Street does well, and lose their shirts when it doesn’t. The same goes for the blanket demonization of “corporations”, who are shareholders of all types of citizens.
This “Occupy Wall Street” movement is a hard core socialist agenda. Which becomes more ironic when they mourn Steve Jobs… capitalist entrepreneur, and not much of a charitable man personally… while demanding the demise of the so-called fat cats They are simply a bunch of confused types, all wanting, not getting, and not knowing how to get it except by legal seizure from others. One need only look at the organizers behind this movement to clearly see the agenda and goals… which is the fundamental change in the American governmental structure, as founded. That doesn’t mean that all participants are on the same page, as it is probably a mixture in the crowds. But truthfully, from the interviews I’ve seen of the protestors, and their property destruction and aggressive “protesting”… as well as the penchant for ignoring the permit laws for the organizing… I’m not seeing many that have a brain cell available to rub up with a second. It is this mentality that the organizers take advantage of portray “strength” of convictions for a dubious cause at best.
I’ll agree with Obama being the best thing that happened… not necessarily to the GOP, but to the nation at large. It has brought the unspoken political divide over a Euro-socialist America to the forefront in a big way. Now, with a sample viewing under the Dem heavily dominated Congress since 2007, combined with taking the WH in 2009, the utopia they promise ain’t looking so good. This slowed path to a heavy welfare state, that has been advancing since FDR, wasn’t as in your face as it is now under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Can’t ignore the camel in the tent anymore.
But I will partially agree, and disagree, with the other two somewhat related comments… that Obama has mismanaged the recession more poorly, and that there are limitations to what federal government can do. While there are, indeed, limitations, there are certainly things government can do that merely throws fuel on the fire… and that this Congress and Obama have done without abandon. Mostly what government can do is to back out, pull out some of the onerous regulations that prohibit growth, and allow time for the free market to correct. They have done exactly the opposite, which has slowed the economy, extended the housing crisis, and handicapped growth with regulations created by Dodd Frank, O’healthcare and the EPA..
But then, I disagree with Nan G’s characterization that the GOP would have done most or everything right were they in power. I don’t see that as even possible…. most especially examining their behavior even today. In fact, Obama’s presidency has delivered a very strong lesson to the GOP as well. Obama accelerated the path to Euro-socialism while the GOP always took baby steps. That was the only difference. This surge towards Euro-welfare, and actively pursuing a declining military and economic power, has proven the foolhardiness of the quest for the US. Needless to say, simply a glance at the status of the Euro-socialist nations today is a perfect example of it’s ultimate failure – both economically and socially.
This brings me to something that you have now suggested twice, Larry… that the US tear up the founder’s Constitutional structure of government, and goes the path of merry ol’ England in one party parliamentary power. You think this is the answer to political gridlock.
I would like to point out that we’ve had something very close to “parliamentary” power since 2007 and 2009. Prior to that it was flipped to the GOP between 1996 and 2006. Neither has been a success story, and instead the onerous and unwise regulations perpetuated, and the spending increased… mostly due to the downhill snowball known as the entitlements… another Democrat “success” story.
I think the difference between you and I is that you see political gridlock.. which has been in existence since our founding… as a detriment. I see it as a healthy way to prevent wrong headed directions. Indeed, in the past 80 years, I think we have had not enough political gridlock, as some very ill thought programs have sailed thru with the rubber stamp of both political parties.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=133249913443271&set=a.131495456952050.18782.129365397165056&type=1&theater
@MataHarley:
Very nice to hear from you, Mata. Let me make it clear, I’m not against Wall Street as a whole, nor am I against those who are successful and wealthy. We do need and benefit from our financial sector. My work has put me in contact with some of the most wealthy and successful people in the country. Most are consistently warm, respectful and generous to me. My problem is with those who buy the political system who cater to their interests, and with leaders who play along with the game because it keeps them employed – nearly all of them. I think most Americans are on the same page with that, it’s not about left vs right. The protests downtown are about exactly that, not the Socialist agenda many on the outside seem to believe. Nobody (at least not most of us – there are always some unreasonables… ) is looking for a handout, and certainly not the handout the banks have received with OUR money. The news reporting about one guy taking a crap on a police car gets ratings and sells papers, but it’s hardly an accurate portrayal of what is happening down there. It’s a call for accountability and responsibility. Your side AND my side have been calling for a revolution for some time now. This is it.
Cary, the organizers from the protests include union leaders and organizations… or, as you prefer to describe them as “leaders who play along with the game because it keeps them employed” and also “those who buy the political system who cater to their interests.” Doesn’t this strike you as a bit muddled to praise the OWS organizations who are exactly those whom the protestors are supposed to be protesting?
This should serve as an embarrassment to one of the sundry organizers, US Day of Rage.. ironically the same rallying cry of Bill Ayers Weathermen back in the 60s. Day of Rage hates “corporations” too, but doesn’t mind union thuggery and money influencing Congress and politicians. They call our government “illegitimate”. hummmm But they sure don’t mind hitching their wagon to cyber terrorists of powerful unions, do they? I guess they are just selective about those “with influence” they approve of… all while using the benefits of “big evil corporations”, like Twitter, iPhones, computers, etal to destroy the same..
I’m afraid this OWS is exactly that… right vs left. Or in this case, it’s right/moderate vs *extreme* left. Maybe you should take a closer look at their website and closed fist of power logo used. This is a symbol used by the left since the late 60s as a sign of militancy and rebellio,. utilized by the United States Communist Party, the Students for a Democratic Society , and the Black Panther Party for Self-defense.
I had to laugh with the “history” site of the clenched fist I linked, as they tried to portray it as a symbol used for the 2009 Taxpayers March on Washington. However HuffPo has plenty of photos from that 2009 march, and nary a clenched fist in sight. I will agree there are some very offensive signs there, tho. But no overt symbols of militancy, nor organizers that can be tied to hard left progressive/socialist agendas as is done here.
Of course, the name – Occupy Wall Street – itself came from Soros funded rag, Adbusters. This rag, pure anti-consumerist, anti-semite and proudly using culture jamming, condemns agendas while pushing forth one of it’s own… and it ain’t for the masses.
That’s funny.,.. seems the way “information flows” works well enough for their organizing, doesn’t it? Perhaps that’s because they’d prefer to restrict the way information flows.
Maybe you ought to consider the endorsers, such as the cyber hack terrorists game, Anonymous.
In fact, why don’t you read about some of the key players in OWS…. all hard core, unapologetic progressive/socialists who unabashed call for American Revolution.
Even Mayor Bloomberg is starting to condemn the destructive protests, and their quest to drive banks out of the city.
While you would like to see what you want to see, and attach some glorious lofty cause to this, you are closing your eyes to the agenda and goal of the organizers themselves.. those who have no compunction using those who don’t research their compadres, to give impression of power in numbers. Mostly, it’s a collection of utter dupes, attracted to feel good slogans.
This is *all* about right/moderate vs *hard* left.
The Occupy Wall Street people need to take a job … any job. They need, like the rest of us, to start at the bottom of the totem pole and work their way up.
They may believe that they should have large salaries and work in jobs that make them fulfilled, however, that may not happen. When someone hires someone else, they need the employee to earn enough to pay their salary and benefits. Someone with a degree in a soft area can’t generate enough income to an employer to justify their salary.
The colleges have been scamming these people. Lots of degrees are useless. I told my kids to get a college degree in a useful area. They are both working and making more than their peers. People I know with soft degrees are not working, or are not working in the area they studied.
If you want a job… get a skill. Dentists, plumbers, lab technicians, nurses, teachers, electricians and other people with the ability to work with their hands, will have work.
The “Hard core” leftists are to the progressive movement what the Birchers and Klan are to the Tea Party.
There are Occupy movements rising up all over America- do you really imagine that they are all formed and populated by “Hard core” leftists? The Left, if such a thing exists anymore, would be ecstatic to have such a following!
I am helping organizing an Occupy event here in Orange County, CA. Our organizing leadership is mostly working professionals, with a smattering of college students. We do have one (1) student who describes himself as a socialist, so you can use that if you want.
No, we are not agitating for the destruction of capitalism, no we don’t envy the wealthy.
What angers us, and motivates us, is the realization that we live in a polarized economy, with all the economic and political power concentrated at the top 1%.
We don’t have “capitalism” in America, we have a 3rd World corrupt oligarchy, crony capitalism version of amarket economy.
All the various and sundry causes- environment, labor, civil rights, etc.- all stem from the fact that our democracy is being hijacked by well-connected banks and corporations, to the detriment of the people.
You can ignore the scraggly college students, ignore the tie-dyed radicals all you want to, but more and more, the Occupy movement is made up of middle aged middle class professionals like me who say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Liberty60, I’m quite sure there are some that aren’t necessarily hard core left/progressive socialists. No populous movement is ever a one size fits all. However before I show up at rallies, I sure like to know the leaders of the talking points, and in this case you wouldn’t find me lending my voice to their slogans of national disgruntlement.
But I do find it interesting you you seize upon that top 1% bit. We’ve gone over that in the past here, and you may want to check out some historical figures of wealth concentration and the nuances of that phrasing in my comment/charts #126 on that thread. Fact is, save depressions/recessions, the concentration of wealth in the top 1% hasn’t fluctuated much since the 20s. So much for the decline into… how was it you called it?… a hijacking by “well-connected banks and corporations, to the detriment of the people”. During depressions/recessions, the amount of wealth held declined because they, of course, lost their shorts. These days, since a high concentration of average job blow workers are also invested in Wall Street as corporate shareholders, pensioners and funds holders, they also lose their shorts. It’s only that they possibly have less to lose in the amount of zeros that follows their invested amounts. But $100 to one man may be the equivalent of $1 mil to another in personal fiscal impact.
As far as wealth concentration, I’d argue otherwise to that “detriment of the people” bit. As of 2011, the top 1% held about 32% of the wealth. The bottom 50%… coincidentally about the same number of households that do not pay any taxes at all… held about 1-2% of the wealth. Flipping that around, that means that 49% of American control the majority – or 64-65% – of the wealth. And much of that can be attributed to the increase of average Americans being able to also participate in investment holdings via pensions and 401K as part of their employment. Unfortunately, most of these “wealth” concentration statistics don’t actually examine holdings other than income, so it’s rather arguing over the arbitrary and vague.
There is also the reality that history has proven that socialist or communist style redistribution also creates a serious wealth inequity, with an even smaller percentage of elite privileged controlling the power and wealth. The pointed difference is that, in the American system, anyone can break that barrier… a prime example could be the revered icon, Steve Jobs, starting out in a garage on his path to evil corporate wealth. In a communist or socialist society, that opportunity is stripped away.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to portray yourself as a “moderate” conservative, but I’m sure not buying it with the language you use. Strikes me that you and your other local OWS organizers, if not taking advantage of your local union thugs, are simply disgruntled liberals and progressives engaging in more of the same lip service about wealth redistribution via government control.. as has been done for decades. You can’t be complaining about the power and influence of “the wealthy” when you utilized those like the unions, who are no different in wielding their power and funds absconded from working professionals than pharma or financial lobbyists. It comes down to this.. there are those you approve of wielding power, and those you don’t. I guess it all depends upon if you believe what they are lobbying for benefits you.
@Helene: I have three good jobs that require skill (all seasonal, so I’m covered for the year – two of them freelance), was among the first of my peers under contract to receive a promotion, am pursing and work in a career that mostly requires skill (although many who aren’t do get work), am learning a new skill, pay taxes, vote, and participate as a citizen in this Democracy. I’m one of the people you’re referring to. Please don’t decide who I am based on what the media tells you.
@MataHarley:
Do you oppose this movement because you believe the outrage to be unfounded or because you simply question the motives of those who first started it?
Also, to you oppose all acts of civil disobedience?
Wow Cary… a few leaps to bizarre assumptions there.
I oppose what the leadership of this movement is attempting to achieve, yes. It is overt avocation of rebellion against this nation as founded, pushing for Euro-socialist wealth redistribution and concentration of more power in the central government. I do not oppose their right to protest…. however imbecile most appear to be when a camera is trained on their mugs.
I have engaged in a few acts of civil disobedience myself. Then again, so does everyone who doesn’t bother to buckle up their seat belt, or use a wireless headset for their cell phones while driving in certain states. But I most *certainly* oppose thuggish behavior that engages in property destruction (i.e. too many of these protestors, those in WI, the Seattle int’l protests in the past etal), and threats of bodily harm, (aka the Longview, WA union protestors). ’tisn’t any better here in Portland, where they were permitted to march without a permit, occupy a park illegally, tag private property, vandalize a police car, and involve themselves in sexual assaults. But Portland has one law for conservatives, and another for what makes Portland not-so-uniquely “weird”.
I’m not an “all or nothing” kind of person, so you should not take my commentary as such.
More on the irony, Cary… and in your back yard. Evidenly interrupting the normal business flow in the Big Apple in the middle of a double dip recession via “occupation” of Zuccotti Park, but were planning on doing the same to both Battery Park and Washington Square.
Example of the chutzpah?
And their “occupation” is what, other than affecting others’ lives and livelihoods? But I guess that doesn’t count, does it?
INRE the thrust of the organization… no Tea Party, who gets permits and protests according to laws… this group.
@Helene:
Helene, that’s a good point.
Skills acquired are worth more then the skills themselves.
They are proof of the willingness and ability to learn.
Resumes tell a story between the lines.
Lots of these dopes and dopers on our streets protesting have majoring in work-avoidance for years.
A few years back, when Japan had its meltdown, we learned that the Japanese and American workers had unrealistic expectations of getting one job (career) and holding it for life.
Now, the new reality is that a worker might switch jobs, even career types a dozen or more times in his working life.
Who has the upper hand?
Womyn’s studies/black studies/ethnic studies majors?
Or engineering /nursing/mathematics/chemistry majors?
You all know the answer.
So do the fools occupying and peeing all over public property.
@MataHarley:
Your reply to my post was interesting-
the first part was fact-based, an argument we could probably both find worthwhile.
Your second, however, moves into almost comic territory.
I pointed out that many in this movement are middle aged middle class middle managers, working professionals, regular suburban PTA and soccer moms and dads.
No, you argue, that simply isn’t true- we are disgruntled liberals, malcontents, and imply that we are in no way representative of mainstream America.
I state that we are seeking a rebalancing of economc and political power, to fit within the market-based economy.
Oh no, you insist, what we really want is a Soviet-style Bolshevik society, and deliver a lecture about how horrible such a thing would be.
A lecture, of course, that I myself delivered to my leftist friends back in the 1970’s when I was a campus Republican, and eager advocate for Reagan.
This is just Godwinization of the highest order.
Speaking of comical… what part of my comment back did you miss. Quoting verbatim:
There is no denying that the organizers and social media pushers for the attendees are coming from the left, the progressive left and the socialist left. If you are not part of this particular political flavor, it’s hard to believe when you use the same “top 1%” and “hijacking” by those evil “banks and corporations” complaints. Protest all you want, however you sound like their echo.
@Helene:
“If you want a job… get a skill. Dentists, plumbers, lab technicians, nurses, teachers, electricians and other people with the ability to work with their hands, will have work. ”
No, this is factually untrue.
I am a middle manager at an architecture firm, and personally laid off half a dozen highly educated, highly skilled wonderful emkployees back in 2008, when there simply wasn’t any work. No work, regardless of how skilled they were.
My resume is such that during the heydey in 2006, I was being recruited and offered signing bonues, company cars, and so on.
Today I cling to a modest position, terrified of the next blip of the banking world radar.
But meanwhile, I witnessed the Wall Street banks that turned a cautious and carefully managed industry into a wild casino, and get their gambling losses paid off by the taxpayer, while the rest of us are given stern lectures about fiscal prudence.
@MataHarley: Making no assumptions, just asking questions. I’m sure I don’t agree with every individual protesting, or condone every act; I’m not an all or nothing person, either. I mean, there are over 3000 people down there! Like I said before, the media will report what’s good for the media. But you know how I feel and what I think, and it’s hardly pushing for socialism or anarchy. The majority are there for the reasons I’ve described. It’s just not sensational to report what most people agree with, and sensation is what “sells papers.” I know this isn’t news to you. Heck, they weren’t even covering it until it got way too big to ignore.
@Cary:
Cary, if what you say is true: there are over 3,000 people down there, we have a serious problem.
Over 700, nearly 800 arrests in three weeks among 3,000 people?
What is that, proportion-wise?
~25%?
No wonder Obama wants to make it illegal for a prospective employer to even ask the question: have you ever been arrested.
It is the ONLY WAY these idiots will ever have a chance to be employed.
I admit our own educational system has done its level best to infantalize American young adults.
Some people have not grown up and taken care of their own needs even at age 40.
What’s another tantrum to these babies-in-adult-bodies?
They do it all the time.
@Nan G: First of all, it’s over 3000 on any given day. Not everyone goes down there every day (as we do have jobs and responsibilities), and not everyone is camping. Your 700 figure is from a single incident, and there are conflicting reports on what exactly happened. And as John Stewart so humorously pointed out, all of these arrests were for misdemeanors, while the Tea Party namesake is taken from the most celebrated act of civil disobedience in the building of our nation, which was a felony!
Here’s the clip again, in case you missed it before…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration
Cary, please… you are equating today’s civil disobedience by a bunch of neer-do-wells, leaving debris in their path and destroying public property while interfering with other citizens daily lives with the civil disobedience of the American Revolution?
So far the union thugs in WI defaced public property, and sundry OWS protestors have done the same elsewhere. Tell us what similar damage has been done by Tea Party protests, if you please… instead of evoking the actions in the American Revolution.
@Cary:
Oh, please!
They are almost all the SAME 3,000 – X,000 every day!
And, yes, they disobeyed the law and got arrested on the bridge.
BUT, there have also been nearly 100 OTHER arrests.
Nearly every day these marches end with police and marchers clashing, pepper spray and ARRESTS.
And, this modern iteration of the TEA party (the Taxed Enough Already Party) has had NO ARRESTS with hundreds of thousands of attendees.
We (TEA Partiers) leave the park or beach or other forum cleaner than when we arrived, too.
Nobody has to come along and hose it down from all the urine and papers left everywhere.
But they sure have to clean up after the OWS.
We had an OWS demonstration in Long Beach on Sat.
What a mess!
Our marathon was today through some of the same ares.
Cleaners were scrambling!
And I read that only 90 people made that mess!
Amazing!
@MataHarley: I’m sorry you think of me and my friends as “neer-do-wells”… Of course, throughout history, those who stood up for what was right were always regarded the same way… until they won. Then their causes were championed by the very same folks who opposed them.
And we who pay more than our share in percentage of taxes while our leaders fail to represent our interests… yup, that’s pretty much the comparison I’m making.
Are you saying you left debris in your path, destroyed public property while interfering with other citizens’ daily lives, Cary? Because I’m pretty sure that’s what my entire sentence said. Shall I repeat it for you?
So if you did indeed destroy public property and left debris in your wake… yup, you’re a neer-do-well.
@Cary:
Is this OWS protester, who was caught in the act while taking a poo on a NYC police car, one of your friends? Or is he a “neer-do-well”?
How about the people who stormed the Air and Space Museum yesterday…slamming a guard up against a wall and holding him there…prompting a second guard to mace them…are they your friends? Or are they “neer-do-wells”?
How about the person who vandalized the police car in this picture:
Was that person one of your friends? Or was a person a “neer-do-well”?
How about this guy:
Is he one of your friends too? Or, is he a “neer-do-well”?
hahaha Scoll up! I’ve addressed your very question about, what? Three times in this thread alone? I guess three examples mean all three THOUSAND are taking shits on police cars! Your logic astounds me, Aye!
Excuse me, I have to finish this pizza so I’m ready for tomorrow..
Good to hear from you, though.
@Cary:
You didn’t answer my questions.
You defend the protesters and speak of their motivations as if they are all your personal friends.
Are the examples I cited people who are your friends? Or are they “neer-do-wells”?
Why so hesitant to answer directly?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=288075767870075&set=a.115969958413991.17486.114517875225866&type=1&theater
The answers to your questions can be found in the comments I have already left in this thread, Aye. I have better things to do than patronize you by spelling it out for you in vain. The majority of the people down there are not represented by your cherry picked examples, yet they’ve been called many not-so-flattering things on this site. I’M among the people down there. Think what you will of me. I’m past caring. Heck, I don’t even know who you are! LOL
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7rbhzSy8Q1qad3npo1_r1_500.png
@Cary:
Really? You answered my questions in advance?
Wow! How prescient of you…except for the fact that the answers to my questions are not in your previous responses.
Of course, based on your past performances here, I didn’t really expect that you would confront the issue head on.
You wish to speak in vagaries about this group of 3,000 people attempting in vain to convince us that they’re your friends and that you know what their thoughts and motivations are.
Yet, when you’re confronted with the facts about what they’re really all about…well, frankly, you chicken out and run away leaving your small, childish facebook links and .png files behind in your wake.
Oh, and as far as what I think of you…. well, you shouldn’t worry because I find you unworthy of any thought at all.
@Aye:
So little thought that you continue to address me? So little thought that you’ve recalled my “past performances” here when you and I haven’t communicated in oh… around six months? So little thought that you’ve managed to twist what I’ve actually said into something convenient to your “point”?
And yes, the answers to your questions were provided before you asked them. It’s not like you offered anything new…
@MataHarley:
Nope, haven’t done that. If that’s all you were saying, then I misread your meaning. Sorry ’bout that. Most of the liberal “hippies” also care about the environment, so I guarantee whatever mess is being left isn’t from those of us who care about what’s happening. Like I said to you before, and you indicated yourself, not every example is representative what’s really happening. I hope that in your clarification, you do see at least some legitimacy in what the non “neer-do-wells” are communicating. However, the kinds of crowds downtown would, by definition, interfere with some people’s activities. It’s New York, we’re used to it. Heck, I once worked at Macy’s, many years ago, during the Christmas season! Took me an hour to get to work AFTER I got off the subway!
Yes, Cary… you did misread my statement.
I understand the message of the non neer-do-wells. That, however, doesn’t mean I agree with it. Contrary to your original statement that this isn’t about left or right, it is *all* about left and right… and it’s not the moderate left. Nor are their arguments credible when they blast power and influence in the beltway, when they are being used by powerful influences in the beltway like MoveOn.org and the unions. That is my point.
@MataHarley: Then we simply disagree. I’m cool with that. Thanks for the dialogue.
No problem, Cary. Won’t be the first time we’ve disagreed… LOL.
Time will tell what these OWS events lead to. I have very uneasy feeling about all of this, and I hope it’s wrong. Peaceful redress of grievances… assuming most of them have a clue what those grievances are…is well within our American culture and freedoms. This destruction of property and assault on the area businesses, however, is not a good harbinger. With the unions heavily involved… and their historic and current penchant for property destruction to make their point (i.e. both WI and Longview, WA)… it doesn’t look good on the “peaceful” angle. Crowds tend to get carried away with the emotions of the moment. And they very much want to appear “the victims” in the news. Unfortunately, this can make many in the crowd who, are as you and Liberty60 say, more genuine in the complaints the unwitting pawns in a larger game of political chess.
Cary
I can actually understand a lot of the frustration, and I agree with parts of this. I had two houses before the bubble burst. I rented one and it provided a little extra income and some tax breaks. When the bubble burst, I could not rent that house for half of what the mortgage cost me. I ended up short selling it and working out a deal with BofA. Was BofA responsible for me losing that house? Yeah, to an extent, but I also knew what I was getting in to. It’s no different than owning a business. You pay your money and you take your chances.
I do have a question for the OWS folks and supporters though. What are banks and corporations supposed to do? If I had a business and congress told me I could no longer pursue a certain model that was profitable, should I just run in the red for the rest of my life? You hear Dick Durbin and Obama slamming Bank of America for this and that, and that they should fall in line because they took bailout money. BofA didn’t want to take bailout money. SecTres (under Bush) “pursuaded” them to abosord Merrill Lynch and take the money. Now the government which forced this on them is bashing them for doing what they were told was for the “good of the country?” Are you guys holding both parties responsible for this, the way the TEA party did? Are you mad at Pelosi for passing bills that effected all businesses except those she had a vested interest in? Are you mad at democrats that passed Obamacare but are letting their friends off with waivers?
The thing is, we don’t have corporatism, we have crony capitalism. And it’s on both sides, left and right. And Cary, I would occupy with you guys tomorrow if you called for a US representative to go to jail for every banker that goes as well. Why would you want to let the puppet master off the hook and just go after the puppets? Congress knew this was going to happen and allowed it to do so. The Bush administration even told them Fannie and Freddie were going to cause this to happen. Maxine Waters and Barney Frank called it a high-tech lynching. Those two, along with Chris Dodd need to be sharing a cell right along with every banker or CEO you get arrested.
@MataHarley:
How sad. I had hoped that the way Cary’s fellow liberals defended Polanski might have been the start of Cary facing reality. Instead Cary has gone the other way and gone deeper into pathological denial of reality. As seen here, Cary wants to demonize someone else while pretending they are the ultra-pure good guys, all for an ego stroke. To sum up Cary’s arguments-“We have good intentions.”
Further proof of the left’s disconnect.
Guess which President has raked in the most Wall Street bucks in a generation?
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/guess-which-president-has-raked-in-the-most-wall-street-bucks-in-a-generation/
Watch these protestors vote for obama in droves…again.
On a side note, this thread sure brought out the Constitution hating moonbats. (that includes you too larry W)
@Aqua: In short, YES! I totally agree with 99% of what you wrote, regarding who is responsible. At least with politicians, we do have a voice in the voting booth, though too many Americans don’t seem to use it enough. (Or simply pull the lever of the name they’ve heard most…)
@MataHarley: Those things concern me, too. I personally haven’t seen anything but peaceful demonstrations. If I were to see anything getting out of hand, it would be time to head home (or to a pub a bit further uptown…)
@Hard Right:
Oh, yeah.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [DCCC] is asking supporters to sign a petition in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The DCCC email sent out Monday reads:
The DCCC email is one of the earliest expressions of support by an established Democratic campaigning organization.
Nan, they think this is a way to motivate their base and maybe even reverse the coming wipeout in Nov.
The funny thing is, the left has no idea that people don’t support what they are pushing for. People have some support/sympathy with the protestors until they learn what their demands are: GIMMIE YOUR MONEY! That just doesn’t resonate with most Americans.
@Hard Right: GIMME YOUR MONEY doesn’t resonate with most Americans… correct. After all that’s been said, that’s your conclusion… ugh.
@Cary:
For most of those protestors, that is basically it. One way or another they want others to pay for what they want.
@Hard Right: Then you at least agree with me regarding the bank bailouts then? Handing our tax dollars to those who those who screwed up the economy in an effort to make sure they don’t make things worse is bs, right? Especially when things don’t get much better for us… right? Like I said before, it’s both sides of the isle. You’re right about the Dems jumping on board in order to save face. Not many I personally know are falling for it. Hopefully we all get better choices soon…
Things we can also be doing/ doing instead if you’re not on board with the movement, but agree with the outrage:
Join a Credit Union.
If you don’t know where something came from, don’t buy it.
Shop at your small local stores.
Feel free to add…
“Occupy Wall Street” is just about undoing Reaganomics, which instituted supply side economics and promoted financial deregulation. Being opposed to Reaganomics is not exactly “Un-American.” George HW Bush called it “voodoo economics.” He was correct. Next to Marxism, itself, it’s about the most discredited economic theory in history (the concept that tax cuts at the top stimulate sufficient economic activity to pay for the lost revenues from the lower rates). Serious economists (including conservative economists) don’t believe this anymore. But we are still stuck with that which was wrought by Reagan and GW Bush.
We had an absolutely great country, when the rich payed a 91% marginal tax rate (Eisenhower years) and a 70% marginal tax rate (Kennedy through Carter) and when we had a stiff inheritance tax, which prevented the emergence of a “to the manor born” permanent upper class. Nobody is proposing a return to those tax rates, but now we have a 35% marginal rate and people scream that if it’s raised up to 39% they won’t be motivated to work anymore and that Obama is a Marxist promoting class warfare for proposing this. If you think I sound like a Marxist or if you think that Obama IS a Marxist, you should know that the American President who was, by far, the greatest champion of both progressive taxation and a steep inheritance tax was none other than GOP stalwart Theodore Roosevelt.
The “Occupy Wall Street” types are doing nothing more than promoting the All American ideals of Teddy Roosevelt, and I will be very proud to stand tall with those people, when I go down to “Occupy LA” later this week, to talk with the people there about their issues and motivations and, with my presence, register my support.
P.S. to John Galt, Antics, Aqua: Ball is in my court regarding replies to your analyses of effects of Reagan and Bush tax cuts on government debt. Still looking forward to doing this — hopefully relatively soon.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
This is a friend of mine’s Facebook status, he’s more concise and to the point than wordy little me:
See we all use public roads, are served by the same police forces, fire departments, military, etc… these services have to be paid for. Asking those with money to pay a tad more than they have been instead of gouging beyond their means those who are struggling to feed their families, is pretty reasonable, IMHO, and doesn’t threaten our democracy.
Now I’m really confused, Cary. You and the non neer-do-wells are supposedly railing against the bailout spending, but still looking to feed the out of control spending beast that you purport to despise. Transportation funds are supposedly allocated out of gas taxes, the federal income revenue taxes. So what make you so blind in faith as to assume increased revenue from the evil rich is going to places you want it to go by an irresponsible Congress (both parties)?
Nor is that increased revenue going to do one bit to “feed their families”.
All of this nonsense just boggles the mind… the cry for increased power and control by the federal government, which is in turn influenced by the agendas of lobbyists… which includes organizers of this OWS protest. i.e. the green enviros, unions, MoveOn.org, Soros, etc. Nothing about the complaints and their desired cures squares with any reality.
As far as the not paying their fair share, we’ve been thru how much of the tax burden is shouldered on this site so many times it makes one’s eyes roll back into their heads to think about having to do it yet again. It’s a popular populous class warfare slogan, Cary. Unfortunately, hasn’t got much foundation in reality. Whatever extra the government attempts to take from the new classification of who is wealthy will not bring down the debt, and will not discourage irresponsible spending that has been the Congressional mentality since the New Deal.
And I see Larry’s on his anti-Reagan tax tirade again. LOL Been there, done that Larry. As I’ve said before to you, Reagan’s tax policies evoked an improving economy. Obama’s has not. Clinton rode two bubbles in his era… lucky dog. I’ll take results of Reagan over rhetoric any day.
Larry, I forgot to mention. When you saunter on down to your LA OWS party, I’d be curious if you asked many of those there these questions:
1: How many are vested in mutuals, 401Ks, pension, or other shareholder stocks, including financials?
2: Why are they protesting their own profits?
1) Yes Cary, I too was against the bail outs
2) They say “fair share” but usually don’t say what is “fair”. That isn’t an accident because by fair they mean whatever THEY think should be paid for what they want. See, I understand what a liberal really means by “fair”.
3) People like myself think that those “fat cats” pay plenty.
4) I primarily blame the dems for screwing up the economy.
5) I’m hoping to help reform the GOP to get them to be the small government, pro-Constitution, voice of their constituents like they are supposed to be.
Hi Mata,
What the protesters are complaining about is the fact that the top 1% have massively increased their wealth, since the dawn of supply side economics (the top 1% used to have 9% of the wealth, while today they have 24% of the wealth), at a time when middle class and below have back slid. The top 400 people in the country have as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000. The son or daughter of a mailman in the USA has a lesser probability of becoming rich in the USA than their counterparts in Denmark or Finland. There is now more student loan debt than credit card debt. With rare exceptions, Europe today is much more of a meritocracy than is the USA, in terms of educational opportunity and upward mobility.
As angry as I truly am about the defunding of public institutions on account of supply side tax policy, the gutting of the estate tax is even worse. It’s rapidly creating a permanent upper class and this is the antithesis of the American dream, which is rewarding initiative and enterprise.
Many/most of the protesters may not understand the economic forces in play, but it’s sort of like pornography. You may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, the top 1% wealth concentration goes back FAR before your anti-hero, Reagan. It seems a reality check with the stats is needed with a a reposting of the graph I included in comment #126 in an August thread.
Now I’m pretty darned sure that Reagan wasn’t around for you to abuse in the 20’s to the late 70s. Reality sucks, eh? LOL
And I sure hope you don’t advocate returning to the eras when the top 1% held less… you’ll note that they are associated with the depression/recession eras… i.e. FDRs and Carter’s most notably. But it sure seems the top 1% did much better under Clinton that you’d expect, eh? Inconvenient truth that the bottom 99% had it better under Reagan and Bush than Clinton and Obama.
Hey!
Rep. Keith Ellison has a new variant of the broken window fallacy.
He makes the absurd claim that….
regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirements.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/09/dem_congressman_keith_ellison_regulations_create_jobs.html
So, how many like that have there been?
So far, according to the Dems:
1. environmental regs create jobs,
2. food stamps create jobs,
3. illegal aliens create jobs,
4. high taxes create jobs,
5. a deficit economy creates jobs,
6. unemployment benefit operate as a stimulus,
7. trashing good running autos creates jobs.
Did I miss any of the Dems wonderful jobs programs?/
Larry, the estate tax tends to hurt the “little people” a lot more than the “fat cats” you are after. Just ask warren buffett and see how he gets even richer thanks to that absurd tax. Take a look at who gets hit hardest by it. For all your education you are the typical liberal economic illiterate. Your views on taxation are driven by ego and envy.
Hi Mata (#102):
Firstly, let me acknowledge that you are absolutely correct regarding the wealth distribution and I was wrong. I had the correct numbers but was applying these correct numbers to the wrong piles of money (i.e. “wealth” as opposed to “income”).
The correct statement should have been that, pre-Reagan, the top 1% of the population had 9% of the income. Today, the top 1% of the population has 24% of the total income.
Of course, reducing income tax rates will have an immediate effect on income, while it will take years or decades for these effects on income to be translated into effects on total wealth, at the level of the top 1%.
While looking at data with regard to the effects of the Reagan/Bush tax cuts on the haves versus the have nots, please consider also this, and this, and this. (Or, if you are in a hurry, just click on the last one).
And that’s what “Occupy Wall Street” is all about.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Dang, Larry… you’re on a roll, guy with some of this stuff lately…. I’m gonna have to relabel you the “good humor” guy! LOL
But INRE the “wealth vs income” argument, again johngalt went thru that on the thread as well. Can’t remember if you were involved, but you may want to revisit the link I provided for other statistics on those nuances. Take, for instance, you last link (since I am multitasking and in a hurry). The graph only goes back to 1978, and doesn’t include historic figures since the New Deal era that I included. We already know that the “wealth” via Wolff statistics shows that the top 1% shows little variation over the decades.
But that brings me to the Business Insider graphs… who uses as a “source” a blogger, Afferent Input, of unknown credentials, and uses CBO data as his source. Do forgive me if I don’t consider the CBO and a blogger as the quintessential arbiter of accurate depiction of wealth over a genuinely critical economist, Edward Wolff (not to be confused with socialist professor, Richard Wolff, who was a speaker at the NY OWS on Oct 4th).
WTF?
But you are the one who has moved the goal posts INRE what we are talking about in wealth for the top 1%. I can understand that, since the facts sorta got in the way.
So let’s talk “income” vs “wealth” (whether net worth assets or liquid assets)… because as we went thru on that thread, more and more Americans are now also invested in that evil “Wall Street” who is under attack. That is “wealth” that is not considered part of the “income” statistics. More became homeowners in the past decades as well.
This left them subject to the same volatile market factors as those evil wealthy they so despise. Certainly if you want to hold up the lib/prog guru, Warren Buffet, as an example, he makes a pittance of about $100K annually. But that sure isn’t an accurate representation of his wealth. Buffett has figured out how to play the game, funneling his cash thru the lower capital gains. Thus why he’d love taxes to remain high… prevents competition from new billionaires and only the current billionaires stay wealthy.
And if you’d like to include real estate assets, the evil wealthy are suffering large amounts of devalued property because, of course, they are likely to own larger amounts of property. Additionally, the “net worth”.. whether via inclusive of liquid assets or not… has also fluctuated. Using liquidity the “poverty”, or absence of wealth, rises. Using net worth including not easily liquidated assets, the poverty level shrinks.
In a study by Wolff in 2004 … the same Edward Wolff as the source of the graph I provided above…and focusing on years between 1983 and 2001, revealed that the “asset poverty” using liquidity was at it’s lowest during 1983… those evil Reagan years. Liquid assets poverty peaked at it’s highest in 1995 during those glorious Clinton years, and only fell slightly by 2001. Kinda blows the mind, yes? So many seem to believe that the Clinton years were better to the lower percentile. Yet those stats in the graph I posted show exactly the opposite.
Wolff is actually advancing some your arguments with many of his stats…. but there are a few caveats obvious to those who actually get it. Other than a spattered sentence or two here and there in the report, what he does not do is explain how and why the debt of these “asset impoverished” happened. It was not his job to basically saythat so many more had the opportunity to be asset and income wealthy, and they blew it because… like Congress… they spend, spend, spend unwisely.
Now, considering that net worth is based on all income, minus debt, what one should really be questioning is the wise use of increased wealth that was obtainable by medium households. In other words, using the common occurrence during the borrower abuses of the financial tools offered during the real estate boom, did they use their assets as an ATM/piggy bank, and frivolously spend the cash instead of making wise investments to increase/improve their assets?
After watching many manage both their cash and assets for a couple of decades, I have to say yes. Since we’ve already eliminated income statistics as being out of the norm, and we’ve also come to the realization that more and more Americans also can benefit from increased assets/investment income in the past two decades, what we really have is those drunk with what they considered easy money, and becoming more impoverished for their ignorance in managing the asset income. Certainly the public school system would benefit far more had they busted out sex education and tolerance classes, continued with mandatory PE, American history and added basic economic classes.
But the reality is it’s not the system’s fault for inequity in income, asset wealth or liquid wealth, Larry. It is the fault of individual responsibility in managing their income. We could certainly have a viable dialogue on whether the widespread ignorance is the fault of the public schools, or families, but is sure isn’t the system. Instead of using the results of a dumbed down society, bred on “stuff” (as George Carlin liked to call it) and professional consumerism/shoppers, blaming a perfectly adept system that offers opportunity to all who care to educate themselves to wise investment and entrepreneurship is a hyped up version of “never letting a crisis go to waste” in order to expand power of a supposedly benevolent central government.
This is driven home further when, on pg 16, Wolff discusses the differences between the asset poverty trends and the income trends. Or, as he notes:
So it all sorta all comes out in the wash, don’t you think? Opportunities and cash squandered are not the sign of a failed system, Larry. They are signs of consumers with too big of eyes for their bank account, and a lack of education, discipline… or both.
I’m glad you can figure out what OWS is all about… because the official, or non official, message sure can’t. Then again, trying to find someone in the crowd that can articulate a sentence that contains more than nouns and verbs is somewhat difficult. But as I see it, those that squandered, or did not take advantage of the system personally feel it more prudent to blame the system than take responsibility for self and their… even if not perceived.. ignorance in all things financial.
You can either give the government control to take care of the fiscally stupid, and punish everyone. Or you can educate the public so that they can better available themselves of a very good system that is open to all.
I vote for the latter. So you enjoy your compadres at your LA-OWS. I opt for better companionship myself.
Yet again Larry displays his envy and Regan era tax cut obsession.
P.S. I’m presuming that most of the good folks here on F/A don’t watch Bill Maher, but here’s a cogent explanation of what the Occupy Wall Street “hippies” are so unhappy about:
http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-grayson-bill-maher-wall-street-protests-2011-10?op=1
– LW/HB
Alan Grayson and bill maher? You REALLY think either of them are credible in any way?
@Hard Right:
Good reminder, Hard Right.
I had forgotten just how rich Warren Buffett got off of this.
Buffett has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets.
He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.
Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out.
Hi Hard. Grayson is simply trying to explain things from the point of view of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. I don’t present him as any sort of authority figure. It’s simply that the Occupy Wall Street people currently lack a spokesperson, as it is a totally bottom up sort of a movement, and I think that Grayson does a reasonably good job of distilling the grievances into a few bullet points.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Hi Nan,
If the problem is that people are losing small family businesses to the estate tax, then just modify the law to take care of this problem. But this has nothing at all to do with Warren Buffett’s future estate tax bill. Or Donald Trump’s future estate tax bill. etc.
With regard to Warren Buffett profiting from the estate tax, what’s the problem? He’s playing by the rules.
Let me give you an example.
I think that the sport of triathlon is unfair. The swim should be longer than it currently is, relative to the bike and run. So I’ve been complaining about this for 25 years. But the next time I enter a triathlon, I’m not going to do two laps around the swim course, just because I think that this is the way it should be.
You play by the rules that currently exist, while you try to change the rules to what you think the rules should be.
There’s nothing at all hypocritical about this. Being hypocritical is when you catch someone breaking the rules and criticize him for doing this, all the while breaking the rules yourself.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@ Larry
I think the argument of taxes has been pretty much beat to death. Maybe taxes do need to be raised, but how do we know that. For many conservatives, raising taxes is just feeding a government that has gone amok. Why would anyone want to give these idiots, (both sides by the way) any more money. They have proven they can’t take be proper stewards of the money they get now. Bailout money that went to political cronies, tax breaks for politically allied corporations, and a healthcare plan that was shoved down out throats and then waived for political friends. So why would conservatives be jumping on the bandwagon to give this government more money. I’ve seen a majority of conservatives state that they believe the tax structure should be overhauled, why don’t they start there? Then hold congress accountable for the money the money that is coming in before we start trying to see how much more they can spend when taxes are raised.
@Cary:
Here’s a piece of reality for the Facebook friend….
In 2008, the latest year for which data is available, the top 1% paid in 38.06% of total federal income tax recpts which means that the bottom 99% was only responsible for the remaining 61.94%.
The bottom 50% paid in only 2.7%.
Seems rather obvious to me who is not paying in their “fair share” especially if you want to evaluate things based on which group benefits most from gov’t structure and largesse.