• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Operation: Occupy Wallstreet

BigLutz

Banned
1: You mean like... offshore tax havens costing more than $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue, which in general is reinvested into the economy when people who actually understand macroeconomics control Congress? Or the more than $2 trillion in accumulated capital and cash not being invested into anything, let alone the American economy, by the people those very 'higher taxes' would affect?

You do realize that by increasing taxes it will only further entice the rich to send their money into Tax havens correct? Or worse like we see in Britain and to a lesser extent in California and New York, send them fleeing all together.

2: The wonderful thing about citations for potentially contentious claims is that you never provide them.

Well lets look at some citations then.

Mr. Zandi says raising taxes on the rich right now–as opposed to waiting a year or two–carries risks because of the “great uncertainty” in the economy. So he proposes waiting a year or two.

“It’s unclear to me that the (tax) history of the early 1990s or any other period would be relevant,” he says. The danger, he says “Is that consumption will fall a lot more than people think based on previous experience. Given how fragile everything seems, it would be prudent not to take that chance. At least not until the recovery is on sounder ground.”

- Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics

"Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt," - Obama's own former budget director, Peter Orszag

It depends on what you are going to do with the money," Dynan said. "If the money goes back to small businesses, the unemployed, then I think it's likely to stimulate aggregate demand. If you use it to pay down the deficit ... it would be a negative" - Karen Dynan, a veteran Federal Reserve economist who's now with The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy research organization.

Now we can get into a quote pissing contest but I think you get the idea.
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
You do realize that by increasing taxes it will only further entice the rich to send their money into Tax havens correct?

They've been sending their money into tax havens at an unprecedented rate even under current tax rates and even before the election of President Obama. I suppose you support a repatriation tax holiday, too?

"Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt," - Obama's own former budget director, Peter Orszag

As usual, contextually lacking and intellectually dishonest: Orszag presents this as a critique of policymakers who opposed any extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, as earlier in the same NYT op-ed he writes that "deally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now."

"It depends on what you are going to do with the money," Dynan said. "If the money goes back to small businesses, the unemployed, then I think it's likely to stimulate aggregate demand. If you use it to pay down the deficit ... it would be a negative" - Karen Dynan, a veteran Federal Reserve economist who's now with The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy research organization.

The citation request was for an indication from lead policymakers that heightened tax revenue would be used primarily to pay down the federal debt versus reinvestment in small business and infrastructure, not for a cost-benefit analysis of that action, and judging from current policy proposals from the party that isn't beholden to Grover Norquist... we've got a non-starter.

And to begin with, the first two quotes you cite are from 2010 and each agree to 'wait a year or two' to raise the top marginal tax rate.

Now just guess how much time has passed!
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
They've been sending their money into tax havens at an unprecedented rate even under current tax rates and even before the election of President Obama. I suppose you support a repatriation tax holiday, too?

Really its going to happen no matter what. People are going to find ways to save their money. And when you are rich you have the ability to spend alot of money to find those ways.

As usual, contextually lacking and intellectually dishonest: Orszag presents this as a critique of policymakers who opposed any extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2010, as earlier in the same NYT op-ed he writes that "deally only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now."


Not really intellectually dishonest. He would like to see only the middle class tax cuts continued but recognizes the damage it would do if the upper class tax cuts were removed at this time.

The citation request was for an indication from lead policymakers that heightened tax revenue would be used primarily to pay down the federal debt versus reinvestment in small business and infrastructure, not for a cost-benefit analysis of that action, and judging from current policy proposals from the party that isn't beholden to Grover Norquist... we've got a non-starter.

Mainly any idiot that has been watching the news the last few months with the deficit battle will realize that any tax hikes would be used for the deficit as the Republicans and the American Public believe that the previous Stimulus failed horribly and another one would be pissing into the wind.

And to begin with, the first two quotes you cite are from 2010 and each agree to 'wait a year or two' to raise the top marginal tax rate.

Now just guess how much time has passed!

We also thought in 2010 we would be in a recovery by now, not staring into a double dip recession.
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
Really its going to happen no matter what. People are going to find ways to save their money. And when you are rich you have the ability to spend alot of money to find those ways.

When you're rich and filing a 1040, you know what the "best way" to save money is? (That is, without losing what's left of your American consumers?)

Reinvesting your net profits until they fall just below that top marginal rate. I'm sure even you know what that would entail.

Not really intellectually dishonest. He would like to see only the middle class tax cuts continued but recognizes the damage it would do if the upper class tax cuts were removed.

The most he ever says in regards to economic damage, noting that he makes no distinction between economic class anywhere else in the article and especially does not mention 'damage' to high-income earners:

"More troubling, middle-class and lower-class families would be saddled with higher taxes. That’s a legitimate concern, but also a largely unavoidable one if we are to tackle the medium-term fiscal problem."

Yes, intellectually dishonest, because you're inferring something from this op-ed that Orszag literally does not write or even imply.

Mainly any idiot that has been watching the news the last few months with the deficit battle will realize that any tax hikes would be used for the deficit as the Republicans and the American Public believe that the previous Stimulus failed horribly and another one would be pissing into the wind.

"American Public believe that the previous Stimulus failed horribly"

USA Today/Gallup, Oct. 28-31, 2010, in the midst of the largest Republican/"conservative" wave election since 1936:

"Looking ahead, which of the following should be the highest priority for Congress after the election: repealing the new healthcare law, passing a new economic stimulus bill designed to create jobs, cutting federal spending, or extending all the federal income tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration?" Options rotated

Passing new stimulus bill 38%
Cutting federal spending 24%
Repealing health care law 23%
Extending all income tax cuts 8%
Other (vol.) 4%
Unsure 3%

Same polling agency, June 11-13, 2010:

"Would you favor or oppose Congress passing new legislation this year that would do the following?
Approve additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy
60 Favor 38 Oppose 2 Unsure"

Sure seems like the American people actually want another economic stimulus bill.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
When you're rich and filing a 1040, you know what the best way to save money is?

Reinvesting your net profits until they fall just below that top marginal rate. I'm sure even you know what that would entail.

Or just hire a tax attorney to navigate the various tax loop holes we have in our broken tax law system.

The most he ever says in regards to economic damage, noting that he makes no distinction between economic class anywhere else in the article and especially does not mention 'damage' to high-income earners:

"More troubling, middle-class and lower-class families would be saddled with higher taxes. That’s a legitimate concern, but also a largely unavoidable one if we are to tackle the medium-term fiscal problem."

Yes, intellectually dishonest, because you're inferring something from this op-ed that Orszag literally does not write or even imply.

Really that is the most he says about economic damage? Not this?

"Higher taxes now would crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt,"

Sounds like you are being intellectually dishonest now.

"American Public believe that the previous Stimulus failed horribly"

USA Today/Gallup, Oct. 28-31, 2010, in the midst of the largest Republican/"conservative" wave election since 1936:

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

Sixty-two percent of those polled said the stimulus hasn’t contributed to job creation, while 33 percent said the package has.

Only a slight majority, 51 percent, of Democrats think the stimulus helped create jobs; 42 percent said it has not. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified Republicans said the stimulus didn’t aid job growth, while 18 percent thought it did. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36544.html

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55 percent of U.S. voters continue to oppose a second economic stimulus package. Only 31 percent support a second stimulus, and 14 percent more are undecided.

These findings are unchanged from March of last year when a second stimulus was first proposed, following passage of the initial $787-billion economic stimulus package.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/poll-majority-opposes-second/2010/09/07/id/369402

eBay Huckster said:
Sure seems like the American people actually want another economic stimulus bill.

According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, 59 percent of Americans want the federal government to focus on solving the country's debt problems ahead of focusing on the economic recovery. Meanwhile, the poll found that 33 percent want the government to focus on stimulating the economy even if doing so means spending more money.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ns-want-debt-reduction-over-economic-stimulus

By the way this poll was from 07/06/11 nearly a year past yours
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
Or just hire a tax attorney to navigate the various tax loop holes we have in our broken tax law system.

Higher marginal rates not being accompanied by a fundamental reworking of the tax code? What, have I stumbled into the Bizarro Reagan years?

Really that is the most he says about economic damage?

That is the most he attributes toward damage to specific socioeconomic strata rather than the full macroeconomy. You're really quite bad at trying to spin these things.

You claimed he acknowledged the impact that a higher top marginal rate would have on higher-income earners. He demonstrably does not acknowledge this throughout that op-ed.

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not believe the $787 billion stimulus package the president passed last year has helped create jobs, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.

Sixty-two percent of those polled said the stimulus hasn’t contributed to job creation, while 33 percent said the package has.

Only a slight majority, 51 percent, of Democrats think the stimulus helped create jobs; 42 percent said it has not. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified Republicans said the stimulus didn’t aid job growth, while 18 percent thought it did. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36544.html

First up!

Of the nine studies I’ve found, six find that the stimulus had a significant, positive effect on employment and growth, and three find that the effect was either quite small or impossible to detect. Five studies use econometric ”experiments,” which attempt to, as Barro encourages, sort out the effect of the stimulus from other factors using empirical data. Four use modeling instead.

Second up!

Democratic polling indicates voters are much more likely to support a candidate if they explicitly favour domestic private-sector job creation and upgrading America’s education and infrastructure. (You know, what were supposed to be the core tenets of the 2009 stimulus.)

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey

Wasn't Rasmussen the worst pollster in the 2010 cycle by a wide margin?

According to a McClatchy-Marist poll, 59 percent of Americans want the federal government to focus on solving the country's debt problems ahead of focusing on the economic recovery. Meanwhile, the poll found that 33 percent want the government to focus on stimulating the economy even if doing so means spending more money.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ns-want-debt-reduction-over-economic-stimulus

Well, since we've devolved into poll wankery...

Notably, somewhat more, 58 percent, think Obama’s jobs package, if it passed Congress, in fact would do a great deal or somewhat to create jobs – including 91 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of independents and a quarter of Republicans. (The slight gap between support for the package and the belief it’ll create jobs may reflect a cost-benefit evaluation.)

A month ago, Americans divided evenly, 40-40 percent, on whom they trusted more to handle job creation, Obama or the congressional Republicans. Now, after his jobs proposal and ongoing promotion of his plan, it’s 49-34 percent, Obama’s first significant advantage over the GOP on jobs in ABC/Post polling since early 2010.

Questions sixteen and seventeen should be... particularly enlightening.

And an added bonus!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/16/politics/main20107599.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/17/us/politics/20110917_poll_results.html?ref=politics

"As it has since 2008, the economy and jobs remains the most important problems facing the country today. Now, 59% of Americans choose them, placing them far ahead of the budget deficit, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and partisan politics."

(Looking at the crosstabs: 32% "jobs", 27% "economy", a piddling 8% "budget deficit". These two polls taken together kind of tell me people would value stimulus over deficit reduction at the present moment.)
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned

The National Association for Business Economics surveyed 68 members who work in economic roles in private-sector firms. The index showed job growth for the first time in two years. However, the majority of participants in the survey reported that they believed the stimulus had no impact on the recent boost.

Around 73 percent surveyed said that there was neither a boost nor drop in their company's employment as a result of the Recovery Act, which came with a $787 billion price tag. The Act is on its way to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the fiscal year, according to the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/economists_stimulus_didnt_help.html


They just need to avoid the word "Stimulus" seeing how the American public doesn't believe it worked.

Wasn't Rasmussen the worst pollster in the 2010 cycle by a wide margin?

Considering the McClatchy-Marist poll has the same finding of the public not wanting a second Stimulus we can say the poll is accurate.


Well, since we've devolved into poll wankery...

Questions sixteen and seventeen should be... particularly enlightening.

Sad thing is, Obama's Second Stimulus really wont do much into job creation.

"The kick to growth is going to be pretty small. It will add substantially less than 1% to GDP growth in 2012," said Nigel Gault, the chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.

In the second quarter, the economy grew a measly 1% and economists spent the summer revising their forecasts lower and lower.

Obama's proposal is expected to include new infrastructure spending, targeted tax cuts and payments to local and state governments. While details are still murky, sources confirmed the package's overall size was around $300 billion.

"If we're talking about whether the package is big enough to ... start making a dent, it's probably going to fall short of that goal," said Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/news/economy/obama_stimulus_impact/index.htm

It doesn't help that the Job program/Stimulus 2 focuses on infrastructure spending which takes much longer to create jobs.
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
The National Association for Business Economics surveyed 68 members who work in economic roles in private-sector firms. The index showed job growth for the first time in two years. However, the majority of participants in the survey reported that they believed the stimulus had no impact on the recent boost.

Around 73 percent surveyed said that there was neither a boost nor drop in their company's employment as a result of the Recovery Act, which came with a $787 billion price tag. The Act is on its way to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the fiscal year, according to the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/economists_stimulus_didnt_help.html

whoa nuts we've run straight into a Thing Where No One Will Ever Agree

They just need to avoid the word "Stimulus" seeing how the American public doesn't believe it worked.

The American public doesn't believe something works after a protracted multi-billion dollar media campaign specifically meant to downplay or, in the case of the tax cuts within it, its effects? Colour me surprised.

Considering the McClatchy-Marist poll has the same finding of the public not wanting a second Stimulus we can say the poll is accurate.

We can say that the McClatchy-Marist poll may be an accurate depiction of the public's views provided consensus is reached with several other less biased (e: less biased than Rasmussen, not less biased than McClatchy-Marist) polls, not so much that it vindicates the Rasmussen Reports poll (which was released in the midst of its worst showing relative to actual results since the founding of Rasmussen Reports).

Sad thing is, Obama's Second Stimulus really wont do much into job creation.

"The kick to growth is going to be pretty small. It will add substantially less than 1% to GDP growth in 2012," said Nigel Gault, the chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.

In the second quarter, the economy grew a measly 1% and economists spent the summer revising their forecasts lower and lower.

Obama's proposal is expected to include new infrastructure spending, targeted tax cuts and payments to local and state governments. While details are still murky, sources confirmed the package's overall size was around $300 billion.

"If we're talking about whether the package is big enough to ... start making a dent, it's probably going to fall short of that goal," said Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/news/economy/obama_stimulus_impact/index.htm

It doesn't help that the Job program/Stimulus 2 focuses on infrastructure spending which takes much longer to create jobs.

Funny that you post that specific article (and even include the quote by Burtless as he's suggesting "Stimulus 2" should be larger than $450 billion in order to "start making a dent"), given what was posted on CNNMoney two days later...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with some estimating that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package.

"This additional spending capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in aggregate domestic demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring," said Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services.

Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for workers by itself is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll taxes for employers could add an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs.
He added that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost as well.

Macroeconomic Advisors, a St. Louis research firm, estimates that payrolls would grow by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and another 800,000 by the end of 2013, if the package passed as proposed. It is looking for a 1.3% rise in GDP.

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed.

"Given the elevated risk of recession the U.S. faces today, additional near-term stimulus reduces that risk," said Prakken. "Given the deleterious effects of long-term unemployment on an individual's skills and long-term employment prospects, speeding a return to employment is both individually and socially beneficial."

Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, is even more bullish, forecasting a 1.9 million job boost and a 2% lift for GDP if the package is passed as proposed.

Zandi said while pushing more money into the economy is the key, passing the jobs package could also provide a much needed boost of confidence at a time when the economy teeters on the edge of a new recession due to so much uncertainty.

e: And with that I'm out for the night. Laters.
 
Last edited:

MetalFlygon08

Haters Gonna Hate
I'll never understand higher taxes for the rich.

So because they spent their whole life struggling to the top, we should punish them with a higher tax rate?

I mean yes, more money going to fix the debt and all, but it doesn't seem right.
 

Atari

Did it on 'em
I've been following much of this since day one, and I have to say I am in very large support for everyone who has gone out there to protest. Obvious many of them are there for dozens of different reasons, but I feel the general consensus is to fight the governmental machine and corporate greed that has suppressed the working class for so long.
I'll never understand higher taxes for the rich.

So because they spent their whole life struggling to the top, we should punish them with a higher tax rate?

I mean yes, more money going to fix the debt and all, but it doesn't seem right.
Taxing the rich because most middle class Americans are taxed more than the rich. This doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone should pay their fair share.

I like what one of the corporate zombie costume protesters said: "I work 40 hours a week so I can struggleee..." Plus the fact that so many people are not getting jobs because employers are too afraid to hire because of financial insecurity, etc.
 

BigLutz

Banned
The American public doesn't believe something works after a protracted multi-billion dollar media campaign specifically meant to downplay or, in the case of the tax cuts within it, its effects? Colour me surprised.

Yeah or more likely the American people were told repeatedly by this White House that the Stimulus would keep unemployment down below 8%. That it would turn around the economy and do wonderful things. It's results were poor at best, and even the graph that they put out to back up these claims has turned into a joke.

http://www.estatevaults.com/bol/updated unemployment stimulus graph.jpg

Funny that you post that specific article (and even include the quote by Burtless as he's suggesting "Stimulus 2" should be larger than $450 billion in order to "start making a dent"), given what was posted on CNNMoney two days later... .

It also helps if the Stimulus did not focus on Infrastructure spending so much, something that will take a long time to produce actual jobs.

The White House has not provided details of the plan or estimates for job creation. But economists on both ends of the political spectrum say infrastructure improvements might not make much of a splash in the short-term.

“It’s not good stimulus,” said Alice Rivlin, a Democratic member of the president’s Debt Commission and former head of the Office of Management and Budget.

“It doesn’t come online fast enough. If you’re really talking about things that will create jobs quickly, you need to rely on either direct government hiring in the manner of things done in the Great Depression, or demand-side things that will get more money spent by wage earners,” she said.

Alan Viard, an economist with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said infrastructure spending can be “reasonably powerful” but cautioned additional funding might not be the most effective way to spend the taxpayers’ dime.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ld-obama-infrastructure-plan-create-jobs-now/

Atari said:
Taxing the rich because most middle class Americans are taxed more than the rich. This doesn't make any sense to me. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Umm by and large the rich are taxed more.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.


http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
 
Last edited:

ironknight42

Well-Known Member
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The numbers very between the first and the second just for the sake of arguement we can use the lower one its in table one of the 3rd link, that data is from the IRS, top 1 percent pays pays 38% of income tax burden (only possesses 20% of income) and the cut off is 380,000 USD, top 5 pays 59%(only possesess 35%) about 160,000 USD is cut off, the top 10 pays 70%(only possessess 46%) the cut off is 114,000 USD, to 25 pays 86%(67% of income) 67,000 USD is cut off, top 50 pays 97%(87% of all income) 33,000 is cut off. Bottom 50% pays about 3% of income tax burden(13% of all income).

Now if you read that wall of text your will notice a trend the rich are paying there 'fair share' its the poor who are not at least in terms on income tax other taxes do hit them for some tax burden such as sales so that should not be discounted. If income is a barometer of being 'rich' then they are paying their fair share by far. The numbers are in less depth at the first link, the third though is IRS data that closely matches the first. The second link is just some food for thought about the lower income brakets paying no minimal income tax due to deductions and such.

"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
A quote from the second article

Now I think as a whole we have moved away from the entire topic and have moved solely into a discussion of income rather then other demands. Now I'm going to briefly outline the demands as best I understand them and ask for explainations for myself and everyone else for other less clear demands the demands are as quoted by SunnyC...

"They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage." This now I am unfamiliar with, mabye someone could enlighten me to such a situation I have never heard of such an occurence. There idea of illegal may be very much legal as it probably is they probably find it unjust, but thats just and asumption and you know what they say about assumptions they make an *** out of you and me.

"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses." Yes, sadly true, but one would argue that such bailouts never should have been given in the first place or how helpful they really could have been.

"They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation."
Not a reason to form such a protest if such a claim exists and is legitimate it should stand in a court of law there are more then enough such laws on the book to protect them.

"They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization." If the food supply is poisoned why not address it else where I think we did something about this in back at the turn of the last century Progressive Era and such. As for monopoly anti-trust law again fruits of that era in politics, though I question whether it is a true 'monopoly'. I will admit my knowledge of farming is limited, though I did discuss corn combines at lunch just today.

"They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices."
We talking like medical testing or what, lab rats, monkeys, cats, and pigs. Or are they talking about the rearing of animals within systematic facilities for consumption, now if this is the case then don't eat meat except for free range I don't know what to tell you but protest come on.

"They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions."
Work is usually safer then every day life alot more accidents happan on the weekend work places are if anything pretty darn safe with noted exception I am sure but exceptions none the less. Pay well they can select pay or there jobs really I work for minimum wage and I'm a student sounds like this demographic but you don't see me protesting against companies. The reason I don't do this is like I said pay or job you can pick.

"They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."
While it is true that it is near impossible to escape student loans, remember no one said you had to go to that college. I will use myself and my sister as an example my sister pays only about a thousand a year for state school after fed aid and grants and I am applying to schools and recieveing offers for things like half tuition just in merit, with estimated school provided need paying all tuition or most of it and federal paying part of room and board along with private organizations paying more of it. For the record I have no college fund. While mearly my experience and that of my sister I think it attests to the fact that you can go to a school on the cheap and get a degree. As for education being a right yeah it is, its called high school do well in it and your can get money in college, schools are very generous in my experience you just got to make sure you do well schools don't want you to not attend because you are 'too poor'.

"They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay."
Again please provide informaton if you know any about this, I mean this in the nicest way possible. Outsourcing is in itself its own topic, but the effect of outsourcing is low prices which these people are likely benefiting from, no one likes outsourcing but its legal.

"They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility."
Corporations being composed of people are protected by the same rights, I would argue that buisness men are usually held responsible for thier actions and again if it is illegal report them don't sit a protest, be your own advocate.

"They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance."
Legitimate claim, but I doubt they spent millions on a single case, if paying the health insurance is cheaper they will they are driven by self-intrest just like everyone else. They are not siting around thinking of ways to screw you out of your insurance cause it will cost them ten times more to fight it. If you want to close loop holes I guess its a legit protest.

"They have sold our privacy as a commodity."
Yeah sadly true, bet you didn't read that contract though when you signed up for whatever all those contract things on the computer are you know binding, they have the right to do it cause you told them they could(at least in most situtions, if you did not then civil suit). Is it wrong yes, but they do it only with your permission, if they are doing it otherwise again you have a case.

"They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."
So corporations control the military and police you say, they had best hope that is not true if it is true they would already have been wiped off the streets by riot police, they do something illegal though its all over even in a lawful society. Then again if they really controlled the press I would not know about it unless I experienced it personally.

"They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
Civil Suit? (its getting repetative)

"They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce."
Absolutly correct the idea of bail outs and stimulus is flawed we should let the market work, Adam Smith would be proud.

"They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them."
Laws are on the book saying they should be regulated, so campaign finance reform, sounds legitimate enough, what would you do to reform please try to brief not trying to make this the entire topic of this thing.

"They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil."
It is these same people who are likely against the most immediate solutions to the problem, Marcellus shale(which is 'greener'). Solar, hydro, and wind are not that feasible in there current form, ask Solyndra and Boon T. Pickens(I believe that is his name).

"They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit."
There are generics on the market and if anything the FDA is what keeps them off, but mabye I'm wrong I don't claim to be an expert with this medicine stuff. If you can provide information for everyone please do.

"They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."
Talk to the DEP or EPA or FDA, but again not an expert please explain things namely inactive ingredients and oil spills/accidents.

"They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
Where do they get there information, joe shmoes crush corporations blog, they have been exposed to the same media sources and likely use one of them or rely on some sort of blog for information. Then again I'm just a brainwashed victem of the mainstream media.

"They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."
This, I would really like an explaination of what they are refering too. If you can produce and example.

"They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad."
What exactly would colonialism at home be? As for abroad if you call Afganistan and Iraq colonialism then sure but colonialism "is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population." albeit from wikipedia unless soldiers are colonists its not colonialism, this is just semantics but imperialism may have been a better phrase.

"They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas."
This is another one that I want specification about, please if you know would you kindly share legitimate sources only.

"They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*"
Finally the last one...by mass destruction I assume they refer to things that are not really WMD's but rather things like jets, tanks, ordinance, and assault rifles. So they want know military at all, or they want the gov to make it themselves? They want know war ever not even in defense that sound safe am I right. At the risk of sounding silly this reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where all the guns are destroyed for some long dead guys will and then he rises from the dead and uses guns to oppress them, he was a cow boy or something. The point of that fictional microcosm is that you have no weapons someone with weapons is going to try to oppress or take advantage of you. "Speak softly, carry a big stick" Teddy Roosevelt(likely a misquote though).

Now that that is said and done, please respond where you will but do so with legitimate sources for the good of thread, try not to address one thing if you can point out multiple arguements rather then the entire thread being about one of their numerous grievances.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Some news from today. It looks like a show down between the Occupy idiots and the Police, as well as the land owner is slowly building.

CBS New York said:
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly had some strong words for “Occupy Wall Street” protesters Thursday, blaming participants for starting skirmishes which led to more than 20 arrests on Wednesday.

“What they did is they counted. They actually had a countdown — 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 — they grouped together, they joined arms and they charged the police. They attacked the police. They wanted to get into Wall Street, they wanted to occupy Wall Street,” Kelly told reporters.

Police arrested 28 people Wednesday — mostly for disorderly conduct. There was at least one arrest for assaulting a police officer and police said one protester even knocked an officer off his scooter.

Kelly said that if demonstrators targeted the police, authorities would respond with “force.”

“They’re going to be met with force when they do that — this is just common sense,” he said.

The commissioner said protesters were told to stay within the barricades that police had erected and when they crossed over them they began hassling the cops.

“These people wanted to have confrontation with the police for whatever reason. Somehow, I guess it works to their purposes,” Kelly said.

The commissioner told reporters that the protests have cost the city about $2 million in overtime for officers assigned to cover the demonstrations.

Despite the clashes and arrests, Kelly stressed that as long as protesters followed the rules, there would be no issues.

“We are accommodating peaceful protests. We are proud of the fact that we do that in this city. People are going to be here for an extended period of time. We’re going to accommodate them as long as they do it peacefully and in accordance with the laws and regulations,” he said.

The problem for the city and the police is even if they wanted to, they can’t evict “Occupy Wall Street” as long as they make Zuccotti Park their headquarters. It is private space that must be opened to the public

“The charter, it gives access to the park 24 hours a day, seven says a week,” Kelly said.

When asked by CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer if there was an end game, his response was carefully considered.

“You know, we’ll see. Right now they’re on private property and people who own that property don’t have the power to eject them,” he said.

But Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, seems to be slowly building a case against protesters, saying Thursday that the protestors are interfering with the use of the park by others and are creating sanitary problems.

“Sanitation is a growing concern,” Brookfield said in a statement. “Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight. . . because the protestors refuse to cooperate. . .the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”

NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly: Wall Street Protesters To Be 'Met With Force' If They Target Police Officers

If they do get evicted, or if a few idiots do attack the police, the police will rightly respond with force, and this entire thing could blow up.

And the death threats from the protestors to the rich begin...

Politico said:
Several influential New York state lawmakers have received threatening mails saying it is “time to kill the wealthy” if they don’t renew the state’s tax surcharge on millionaires, according to reports.

...

The email references terminology that has been used in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement — that the1 percent, the super rich, are exploiting the remaining 99 percent of Americans. The angry message demanded that Albany politicians “stop shoveling wealth from the lower 99 percent into the top 1 percent” and “set aside your ‘no new taxes on anybody’ pledge.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65307.html
 

PokemonLeagueChamp

Team Aero Leader
More taxes=more government revenue. Of course, with today's politicians, $2 million of tax revenue="ONGOING let's spend $25 million on stupid crap." Simply pointing a finger at a demographic and raising their taxes isn't going to solve the problem, at least no on its own. I say we fine some of the money away from those who screwed our economy in the first place. You know, the ones who were never penalized.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I say we fine some of the money away from those who screwed our economy in the first place. You know, the ones who were never penalized.

That.. would be great except right now we are still PAYING money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
 

BigLutz

Banned
How come jerks like Heman Cain have to go and support these Wall Street fat cats I mean fight for the common man come on. Get them jobs not CEO's huge severance packages.

Herman Cain has come out and clarified what he was saying. That going around and protesting is not going to make your life better. You need to go out and work for it. The man grew up incredibly poor, and has worked his way up in life. So he knows a bit of a thing or two of bringing yourself out of poverty.
 

woot21

super noob
Since the tax rates were brought up, I'll bring up the old Republican standby about higher taxes on the wealthy, and why if people had brains it would hurt their case. We've all heard how the richest 1% in the country pay 45% of the taxes here in the US, right? Now who here knows what percent of the country's wealth that 1% percent controls? It's higher than 45%, closer to 55% if I recall. So which part of the population isn't paying their fair share of taxes?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Since the tax rates were brought up, I'll bring up the old Republican standby about higher taxes on the wealthy, and why if people had brains it would hurt their case. We've all heard how the richest 1% in the country pay 45% of the taxes here in the US, right? Now who here knows what percent of the country's wealth that 1% percent controls? It's higher than 45%, closer to 55% if I recall. So which part of the population isn't paying their fair share of taxes?

Rich also have to pay state and local taxes, which do in many parts get up that high. Also got anything to back up those numbers?
 

ironknight42

Well-Known Member
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly....html?x=0&.v=1

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The numbers very between the first and the second just for the sake of arguement we can use the lower one its in table one of the 3rd link, that data is from the IRS, top 1 percent pays pays 38% of income tax burden (only possesses 20% of income) and the cut off is 380,000 USD, top 5 pays 59%(only possesess 35%) about 160,000 USD is cut off, the top 10 pays 70%(only possessess 46%) the cut off is 114,000 USD, to 25 pays 86%(67% of income) 67,000 USD is cut off, top 50 pays 97%(87% of all income) 33,000 is cut off. Bottom 50% pays about 3% of income tax burden(13% of all income).

Now if you read that wall of text your will notice a trend the rich are paying there 'fair share' its the poor who are not at least in terms on income tax other taxes do hit them for some tax burden such as sales so that should not be discounted. If income is a barometer of being 'rich' then they are paying their fair share by far. The numbers are in less depth at the first link, the third though is IRS data that closely matches the first. The second link is just some food for thought about the lower income brakets paying no minimal income tax due to deductions and such.

"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
A quote from the second article

I hate sounding like a broken record but thats the income information by percents. Such as the top 1% earns 20% of the national income but pays 38% of the income tax. Please don't just spout figures use a source. The numbers are limited solely to the income, capital gains would require different tables but I would assume likely have a similar graduated rate where the more you make the more you are punished for it.
 
Top