Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Townsend]

She could be President.....

"Nu-cu-lur"

[Cats Cats Cats]

Did you see that boat?

My income has very little to do with your income.  Warren Buffet's income has very little to do with mine.

Did you see that boat?

This isn't true.. Republicans make a direct correlation of the Warren Buffets' of the world income to yours.  If he makes 5% less the whole economy collapses and you can't make any money.

[Breadburner]

[Townsend]

[Teatownclown]

Who owns the big tv networks?

[Red Arrow]

The thing is that 400 billion they get to keep by enjoying the 15% tax bill leaves a gap that the rest of us are paying on now.  To make up for that, IF each of us 99%ers paid an EXTRA $1,000 per year, it would take 4 million of us to make that up.  So we would THEN have a situation where the 1%ers are paying their 15%, and the 99%ers are paying their 18 - 19% and then they get to pay an EXTRA $1,000 per year.

I think there are more than 4 million in the 99% club.  There are approximately 310 million people in the US.  Figure about 1/4 of them pay income tax considering families and low income folks.  That would be 76,725,000 people in the 99% club. Using your example, 76,725,000/4,000,000 = 19.18.  Each of the 99%ers would only have to pay $1,000/19.18 = $52.13.  I think I can afford that.

UNFORTUNATELY, $1000 x 4 million people is only $4 Billion, not the $400 Billion you mentioned.  You missed two orders of magnitude.

For the 1%ers to carry this, they would average $400B/775,000 people = $516,129. each.  The 99%ers would average $5213. each.   Averages can be deceiving since even with a flat rate, 15% or the highest earned income bracket, those who make more pay more dollars.  (The issue of fairness is not part of this analysis.)   I am aware that this somewhat makes your point but what it really shows is that we are spending too much.  It doesn't matter who gets stuck with the bill, we can't pay it.

[Gaspar]

I think there are more than 4 million in the 99% club.  There are approximately 310 million people in the US.  Figure about 1/4 of them pay income tax considering families and low income folks.  That would be 76,725,000 people in the 99% club. Using your example, 76,725,000/4,000,000 = 19.18.  Each of the 99%ers would only have to pay $1,000/19.18 = $52.13.  I think I can afford that.

UNFORTUNATELY, $1000 x 4 million people is only $4 Billion, not the $400 Billion you mentioned.  You missed two orders of magnitude.

For the 1%ers to carry this, they would average $400B/775,000 people = $516,129. each.  The 99%ers would average $5213. each.   Averages can be deceiving since even with a flat rate, 15% or the highest earned income bracket, those who make more pay more dollars.  (The issue of fairness is not part of this analysis.)   I am aware that this somewhat makes your point but what it really shows is that we are spending too much.  It doesn't matter who gets stuck with the bill, we can't pay it.

But there is about 22% of the population for whom math is not an important component in making a any economic point.  For them, terminology like "fair share" offers something they can grasp, even if it is an illusion.

[Gaspar]

Very interesting analogy here.  Liberals for the last three years have labeled the Tea Party as violent mobs, promoting violent rhetoric. 

ListenLogic, a cyber security firm that monitors online chatter is releasing public warnings about alarming changes in the rhetoric of the occupy groups.


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-dark-side-hacking-threats-dirt/story?id=14706311
(ABC News) — Vincent Schiavone, founder and chairman of ListenLogic, a company that gives corporate clients advance warning of cyber attacks and of other threats circulating on the Internet, calls Occupy-related threats "alarming." His company monitors a wide variety of online sources — including Facebook and Twitter postings and even posted church sermons — to see what topics, issues and grievances are increasing in volume, meaning in intensity and in number on the Internet.

An online "Occupy Threat Center" created by ListenLogic says the company's analysis of "over one million social media posts" indicates a significant increases in all of the following:

Social media activity from Occupy supporters and activists promoting physical destruction and violent action.
Direct and specific threats from Occupy "hacktivist" groups against specific financial and law enforcement targets.
Social media posts, videos and images targeting: financial institutions that issue mortgages and student loans and that initiate foreclosures; corporate entities that received bailout money or government subsidies; companies that pay high executive salaries or bonuses; and companies perceived to be paying extremely low taxes.
ListenLogic is detecting, he says, a change in the tone of discourse about the so-called 1 percent richest Americans.

There still are postings that talk about taxing the 1 percent more severely or even throwing them in jail. "But then," says Schiavone, "there's an increase in 'let's kill' them. We see 'eat the rich,' 'kill the wealthy.' There are images circulating of senior executives being decapitated, images of blood. Artists are releasing images of banks on fire."

Such extremism, he hastens to point out, is not representative of the objectives of most Occupiers. "Is that the movement? Absolutely not. They have been trying to be peaceful and respectful." But the movement harbors within it, he says, persons "a lot more radical."

If this is to follow Alinski's rules, I anticipate that agitators in the groups will begin to make claims that they are or have somehow been threatened or assaulted by unidentified persons or groups, in order to move the larger group to violent action. This will serve as rebuttal to the reasons behind escalation. 

Though the actions of these groups will be quite predictable, they will be no less unfortunate.

[patric]

Social media activity from Occupy supporters and activists promoting physical destruction and violent action.
Direct and specific threats from Occupy "hacktivist" groups against specific financial and law enforcement targets.
Social media posts, videos and images targeting: financial institutions that issue mortgages and student loans and that initiate foreclosures; corporate entities that received bailout money or government subsidies; companies that pay high executive salaries or bonuses; and companies perceived to be paying extremely low taxes.

Could that have more to do with one entity being more adept at social media than the other?

[Red Arrow]

Could that have more to do with one entity being more adept at social media than the other?

Or that some of the crowd are too broke to have a computer or iPhone?
Nah.

[Townsend]

  I anticipate that agitators in the groups will begin to make claims that they are or have somehow been threatened or assaulted by unidentified persons or groups, in order to move the larger group to violent action.

You mean like any other group trying to talk people into action ie evangelicals or the "Patriot" groups that popped up all over the place?

[Gaspar]

Could that have more to do with one entity being more adept at social media than the other?

I doubt it.  There are far more Americans that identify themselves with the Tea Party than OWS, and far more websites/hashtags/participants in Tea Party related discussions than OWS. 

I think it is due more to the difference in the rules of protest adopted by each group.  The Tea Party falls on their constitutional rights to assemble peacefully and OWS embraces other texts such as Alinski's Rules for Radicals, as well as other materials.

If you research the various groups websites you will typically find reference to this, or individuals within the organization well versed in the tactics of agitation and social anarchy.

It's a difference in philosophy.

NY has just announced that they will close the park for "cleaning" tomorrow and the protesters will not be allowed to return with their belongings.  In other words, they will not be able to camp there any longer.  This is in obvious response to the escalation.

[we vs us]

I think it is due more to the difference in the rules of protest adopted by each group.  The Tea Party falls on their constitutional rights to assemble peacefully and OWS embraces other texts such as Alinski's Rules for Radicals, as well as other materials.

Nice.  Glad to see you're able to connect this to the conspiracy theories of '08.  If you could work Jeremiah Wright in there, too, that'd give me a real sense closure.

[Gaspar]

Nice.  Glad to see you're able to connect this to the conspiracy theories of '08.  If you could work Jeremiah Wright in there, too, that'd give me a real sense closure.

Why would that be conspiracy?  You can go to the various websites and find the actors, look up their social network sites or websites and see for yourself.  They aren't hiding this.  I doubt they would.  They are proud of what they believe in.

[patric]

NY has just announced that they will close the park for "cleaning" tomorrow and the protesters will not be allowed to return with their belongings.  In other words, they will not be able to camp there any longer.  This is in obvious response to the escalation.

as opposed to:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday that he'll allow the Wall Street protesters to stay indefinitely, provided they abide by the law, marking his strongest statement to date on the city's willingness to let demonstrators occupy a park in Lower Manhattan.
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/10/10/bloomberg-occupy-wall-street-can-stay-indefinitely/