Occupy Economic Terrorism - The entitlement generation move to disrupt ports

[kelpdiver 2]

I don't buy into this claim that OWS are the shock troops of Obama. That sounds like someone with a different ax to grind. For all the talk that Obama is a marxist devil, his policies have also lead many to name him Bush light. And the latter is much closer to the truth.

Having a bunch of hippies making disruptions in the parks, draining city governments, and directing the election to talk about jobs isn't the best thing for Obama's election process.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I don't buy into this claim that OWS are the shock troops of Obama. That sounds like someone with a different ax to grind. For all the talk that Obama is a marxist devil, his policies have also lead many to name him Bush light. And the latter is much closer to the truth.

Having a bunch of hippies making disruptions in the parks, draining city governments, and directing the election to talk about jobs isn't the best thing for Obama's election process.

I dont think they are Obama's shock troops either. I do think he tried to use them until they started proving how stupid they are

I do think there is money behind them from soros and others (and this is what my links were provided for)

To what end yet I do not know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

ts funny how any of us could be against Occupy Wall Street

Considering the massive amount of damage that they caused to the places where they protest (i.e., the Zucotti Park Superfund Site and the physical and economic damage caused to local businesses, as well as the assholes blocking traffic, etc., and generally making it difficult for people trying to go about their business and simply be left alone to deal with it) one can see how if Fleabaggers are representative of a movement then we want nothing to do with it.

That OWS acts in ways not worthy of respect means that lack of respect occurs.

Quote

There are serious talks about raising retirement age, making medicare private (making them more expensive in other words)and cutting benefits

Yeah. No shit. These are all because there isn't enough money to go around. Unfortunately, Fleabaggers don't produce solutions. They prefer to cause problems of their own.

Quote

...and for some reason, you want to stop the people who are protesting against it.

Um, yeah. Mainly because there are those of us who can't retire at retirement age because we're paying for those who already have. That you can't see that taking and taking does not make the earners identify, you've got a problem. And the fact that the Fleabaggers fail to change their tactics shows that they aren't in it for success. Their in it for the short-term good time.

Quote

Look at the 0.1 percent (not the 1 percent, but the 0.1 percent)'s income increase in the last few decade and compare it to everyone else.

Yes, unfortunately repaying college loans for that Master's Degree in Comparative Literature isn't easy because there ain't a whole lot of money in it. It's hard enough paying back med school and law school loans.

See, many of us have problems with people who look not to improve themselves but only to tear down others. We don't like that.

Also, have you noted that corporations aren't the ones talking about retirement age, cutting benefits, etc. Every fucking gripe that the OWS people have is actually a gripe about the government. However, Wall Street is far easier for them to blame.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If they were to succeed and and we all had to suddenly give half of everything to the lazy fuckers ... you can count on ALL of us working less, caring less, contributing less. This sounds like a good plan?

Sounds exactly like the downfall of communism. Looks good on paper but just doesn't work in practice...for just those reasons....and more, of course.

Sounds exactly like why communes didn't succeed as the idealistic had hoped.

Sounds somewhat like why unions suck these days.


The bozos won't do their fair share and we're supposed to cover for them? Nah.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Are you seriously happy giving part of your wealth to people who are richer?

Well, yes. I do it every day...every time I buy a product. Not one of those producers are poorer than I am.

Yes, yes...I know what you are talking about. Just a little poke, that's all.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You can always try to dispute my claims with concrete numbers and statistics.

Quote

You first.

Do you have anything positive or is it the normal, "I have nothing except an uncontrollable urge to tear down somebody else?"

Sounds just like the Occupiers.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You can always try to dispute my claims with concrete numbers and statistics.

Quote

You first.

Do you have anything positive or is it the normal, "I have nothing except an uncontrollable urge to tear down somebody else?"

He demanded statistics and numbers, while providing vague generalities of his own. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and waiting on his evidence that "the 1%" is to blame.

Quote

Sounds just like the Occupiers

I refer you back to the last half of your own first sentence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

He demanded statistics and numbers, while providing vague generalities of his own. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and waiting on his evidence that "the 1%" is to blame.

you must be blind.
No such thing did I say "The 1% is to be blamed".

There is simply no denying that there needs to be modification to the current system which disproportionally favours the higher echelon without any real advantages to the overall economy.

It is intellectually dishonest to go on and keep saying: "you just want to blame the 1% for your failure". The system, though very functional overall, needs improvement.

Why do Occupy Wall Street do what its doing?
Look at the GOP proposals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-two-conversations-over-taxes/2011/12/13/gIQAk8VcrO_blog.html

This number has been confirmed by the bi-partisan CBO and you still deny there's anything wrong. What I would definitely like to hear is as to why this is justifiable.


Hugs and cheers!
Shc

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

He demanded statistics and numbers, while providing vague generalities of his own. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and waiting on his evidence that "the 1%" is to blame.

you must be blind.
No such thing did I say "The 1% is to be blamed".

Really? You may wish to re-read the thread, where you keep mentioning the 1% (and the 0.1%) over and over.

Quote

There is simply no denying that there needs to be modification to the current system which disproportionally favours the higher echelon without any real advantages to the overall economy.

If they TRULY want to get the money back, they should raise the taxes on the middle class back to Clinton levels - 3 trillion is a helluva lot more than 80 billion.

Quote

It is intellectually dishonest to go on and keep saying: "you just want to blame the 1% for your failure".

Then why do you do it over and over througout the thread?

Quote

The system, though very functional overall, needs improvement.

Quote

Why do Occupy Wall Street do what its doing?

Because they're as clueless as you as to the source of the problem and they should be protesting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. instead of Wall Street?

Quote

Look at the GOP proposals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-two-conversations-over-taxes/2011/12/13/gIQAk8VcrO_blog.html

This number has been confirmed by the bi-partisan CBO and you still deny there's anything wrong. What I would definitely like to hear is as to why this is justifiable.

Ezra Klein?

From your link:
The House is expected to vote Tuesday on a GOP plan to extend a one-year reduction in the payroll taxes paid by 160 million workers.

Any talk of 'paying back' the cut whether on the right or the left is bullshit, since we're talking about Social Security funds instead of regular income taxes.

I'd like to hear how *under*-funding Social Security when it's *ALREADY* in the red is justifiable in any form.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Really? You may wish to re-read the thread, where you keep mentioning the 1% (and the 0.1%) over and over.

Wow.
There's a major difference to claim:
"you're blaming the 1% for all your problems"

and
"The current system seems to disproportionally favour the 1% and the politicians need to recognize that".

Understand now that I am for the latter.
The least thing you can do is truly refute my claims with something more substantial than saying "Nope false. wrong. That's wrong too!".

Quote

Ezra Klein?

So now you're just shying away from the conversation by trying to point at the author rather than the facts.

Ezra Klein not good for you? Then look at the CBO.
Not good enough?

http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3246

Under the Gingrich Tax Plan, the average federal tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent would be just slightly the 10 percent line.

The Third Quintile, the Fourth Quintile, the 80% to the 95% are paying substantially more than the 1 percent and 0.1 percent.


Next reply of yours is probably going be: "Taxpolicycenter.org?? Laughable source!!"


Cheers and Hugs!
Shc

[normiss 622]

Care to define 'income'?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Under the Gingrich Tax Plan,

And this is applicable to the current situation, how? In case you hadn't noticed, not only is Gingrich NOT President, he's not in Congress to influence tax policy legislation, either.

Quote

Next reply of yours is probably going be: "Taxpolicycenter.org?? Laughable source!!"

No... more like 'lame attempt to fearmonger'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

My issue is that your whole argument is predicated on two premises: that the government spending three and a half trillion dollars per year is fine and dandy and that the wealthiest should make up the $1.5 trillion or so that is the deficit. Or that you make is that there is a maximum level of wealth that you believe a person should have.

There are people on the other side who disagree with both ideas. Both ideas are based upon an individually defined morality that you would seek to impose on others. If you are, for example, a person who believes thay the government has no business in what happens on a person's mattress, then you would also extend that belief to the government having no business in what is underneath the mattress.

What is the source of your moral justification for seizing the assets of others? It's a moral argument that you make. A subjective belief that a person has more than they need or even deserve. It is no different in it's basis than some bible thumper seeking to instill her view of morality on others.

In that sense, the OWS crowd operates in the same fashion as the Westboro Baptists - who occupy cemeteries, are interested in only themselves, don't give a shit whom they hurt (the more damaging the better) and have a specific group that they want destroyed, that they blame, and think that society would be far better off without.

Face it - you admire and respect and ratify the tactics of the Westboro Baptist Church. Change "fags" to "1%" and you've got the same thing. With the exception that the Westboro bigots actually leave after a few hours and don't ask for trillions of dollars to be directed from fags to the good Christians of the world. And Westboro Baptists, from what I've seen, don't leave cesspools in their wake nor damage local businesses.

I hold OWS in the same contempt as Westboro Baptists for the tactics, hatred and damage they cause. I defend their rights to say what they say. I defend reasonable time place and manner restrictions. But both groups are nothing more than self-important, egotistical religious zealots who seek to impose their own idea of morality and villainization on others.

OWS is nothing more than that - selfish moralizers who want to destroy those whom they perceive have sinned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 622]

Nicely stated.

[DougH 270]

X3 X3 X3

Those who scream the most, have the least to say!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

And this is applicable to the current situation, how? In case you hadn't noticed, not only is Gingrich NOT President, he's not in Congress to influence tax policy legislation, either.

All the Republicans who are currently running for office have planned something similar in nature and Gingrich is leading the polls.

This shows a need to shift the conversation on real policies that can be very detrimental to the U.S future. Without OWS, conversations such as these would be less prevalent.

Quote

is predicated on two premises: that the government spending three and a half trillion dollars per year is fine and dandy and that the wealthiest should make up the $1.5 trillion or so that is the deficit.

Where did you bring the number "1.5 trillion $"? Taxing the 1% is not the all-in solutions, but it is fundamental that it has to be part of the solution.

Here is a previous quote from my previous message:
"The TPC analysis point out that if we raised the taxes on the riches (if the old brackets were still in place), the higher brackets will raise an additional 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage. "

~78 billion $ isin't 1.5 trillion $. If we keep extending the Bush tax cut, then not only are we not going to see the additional revenue, but we are actually increasing the deficit with little to no real advantage to the economy. There was a wall-street journal article (remember: WSJ is right-wing) where it showed the CBO prediction that the Bush budget would have gone into surplus had it let the Bush tax cuts ended sooner.

Quote

If you are, for example, a person who believes thay the government has no business in what happens on a person's mattress, then you would also extend that belief to the government having no business in what is underneath the mattress.

Yet the Government is in fact taking YOUR money in order to fund the tax cuts for the rich.

The economy is something that affects all of us.
A couple who has sex affects only themselves.

I like that you're trying to spin this into a moral subject (it would be an interesting subject to talk about), but this is an economics issue. That is why I keep asking people to provide an economic justification why they are defending this. It simply does not make sense from an economics point of view:

which brings to your next point:

Quote

What is the source of your moral justification for seizing the assets of others? It's a moral argument that you make. A subjective belief that a person has more than they need or even deserve. It is no different in it's basis than some bible thumper seeking to instill her view of morality on others.

Then somehow, you go on to talk about Westboro Baptist Church and I how "admire them".

So I'l pretty much say this again: This is a real economics issue and that is how you should see it. Unless if this is talked about in the mainstream media, the politicians will implant policies that are proposed by the current GOP nominees.

We have to be realistic in our approach.


And I want to end with something you said at the beginning of your post:

Quote

that the government spending three and a half trillion dollars per year is fine and dandy .

I will be extremely happy to discuss the 2008-2011 economic issues in regards to "printing/spending" money.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4236166;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

This topic provides a small summary (by no means exhaustive).
...

OWS, the Tea Party and a lot of the average Joe continue to vilify important policies such as TARP. But TARP truly did save us from the Great Depression. Remember that TARP was implemented by both Republicans and the Democrats (despite being highly unpopular) because it was a necessity.

George Bush & Henry Paulson and Obama & Timothy Geithner did an excellent job with TARP (not perfect, but very successful). I judge its sucess based on economic premises (not on moral values).

Had either Presidents (Bush or Obama) judged TARP based on moral values (like your rebuttal do), our economies would have collapsed.


And in fact, speaking of current events, Germany kept looking the Euro as a moral question and look where they are now.

Europe and what happened in their last summit (last week) can be summarized with this passage:
""With this in mind, the most obvious point about the recent summit is that the “fiscal stability union” that it proposed is nothing of the sort. Rather than creating an inter-regional insurance mechanism involving counter-cyclical transfers, the version on offer would constitutionalize pro-cyclical adjustment in recession-hit countries, with no countervailing measures to boost demand elsewhere in the eurozone. Describing this as a “fiscal union,” as some have done, constitutes a near-Orwellian abuse of language.'' "



Hugs and Cheers!
Shc