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

[Gaspar]

Didn't quite work out the way the electorate had hoped apparently.

They had a clear influence on the last election, and based on current policy decisions they are have a clear influence that will be echoed in the next election.  Not bad for a group of rightwingnuts.

[guido911]

Like I asked in another thread, at what point are these morons no longer considered the "fringe" but the norm.

[Townsend]

They had a clear influence on the last election, and based on current policy decisions they are have a clear influence that will be echoed in the next election.  Not bad for a group of rightwingnuts.

So it's okay they're still asking for federal funding for their states, big government, etc?

[Townsend]

Like I asked in another thread, at what point are these morons no longer considered the "fringe" but the norm.

Well, if we go by TP standards, when they get nominated.

[guido911]

Well, if we go by TP standards, when they get nominated.

Or Elected. Do you REALLY want to go down that road?

[Townsend]

Or Elected. Do you REALLY want to go down that road?

I'd imagine I'd pass on the Supreme Court Justice you've got pics of thumping one out leaning against the 81st precinct.

However, getcha a gander at who's in there now.  Not 100's of shining stars that's for damned sure.

[nathanm]

20 years of government expansion.

So you're saying they are/were delusional? Because that didn't actually happen. 10 years, perhaps. 20? No. Government was shrinking during most of Clinton's tenure, although spending did increase relative to population, but not relative to the size of the economy, in the late 90s

Federal expenditures relative to GDP:



Expenditures and investment per person:



What has us stuck at this relatively high level of expenditure are two things, one of which we're partly about to fix. Military/security spending went through the roof during the Bush years, and mandatory spending has increased thanks to higher unemployment, greater numbers of retirees, and doctors playing CEO instead of playing doctor.

[Red Arrow]

So you're saying they are/were delusional? Because that didn't actually happen. 10 years, perhaps. 20? No. Government was shrinking during most of Clinton's tenure, although spending did increase relative to population, but not relative to the size of the economy, in the late 90s

We got used to spending money during the bubble but didn't stop when the bubble burst.

[nathanm]

We got used to spending money during the bubble but didn't stop when the bubble burst.

Evidence from the various European countries since the meltdown shows pretty clearly that austerity just makes things worse.

[Red Arrow]

Evidence from the various European countries since the meltdown shows pretty clearly that austerity just makes things worse.

I interpret your second chart to say that since government spending was growing per person since about 1995, that government was growing.  Population growing. $ per population growing. Easy conclusion.  Whether it was worthwhile and good is certainly a topic for discussion but worthwhile or not, it was growing.

The fact that the economy grew in the dotcom bubble even faster made it so we could afford it.  Toward the end of the second Clinton administration, the economy was weakening in some sectors.  About that time we needed to figure out what was fluff and could be cut.  Most Americans seemed to be in favor of getting the bad guys in Afghanistan shortly after 911.  The war in Iraq didn't start until 2003.  I remember watching the initial weeks on TV while looking for my present job after I got riffed from my job from the Clinton era due to lack of business.

There is no question that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have run the debt up.  History will be the objective judge of whether either should have happened.

Austerity cannot work in an entitlement society.  Unfortunately, big spending wasn't working either.

[Ed W]

Here's another interesting point of view about how money influences policy:

[guido911]

So just who are the One Percenters?

Is Occupy Wall Street targeting the wrong group?

It turns out the finance sector only makes up 14% of the top 1% of American earners, says this CNN Money report. Executives in other industries make up more than 30% of America's richest cohort. Medical professionals compose close to 16% and lawyers are 8% of the top 1%.

Meanwhile, no one is immune to the weak economy. The threshold to make it into the 1% club was over $424,00 in 2007. Today, it's $343,927. That's in large part due to the stock market crash. The number of bankers in the elite echelon might also shrink thanks to lousy earnings on Wall Street this year. Lots of bankers, traders and hedge fund managers will still take home big six figure paychecks, but for many it will likely be less than they earned the prior year. Bonuses on Wall Street may fall as much as 40% from a year ago, reports the Wall Street Journal.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/believe-not-wall-street-doesn-t-dominate-top-183915328.html

Doctors and lawyers combined make up a higher percentage than the evil Wall Streeters. Who's up for protesting the Huxtables!!!

[Ed W]

Did those doctors and lawyers crash the economy?  If they had a role in it, they should be held accountable too.  I'm assuming you wouldn't have any sort of problem with that, so why toss out this red herring?

[guido911]

Did those doctors and lawyers crash the economy?  If they had a role in it, they should be held accountable too.  I'm assuming you wouldn't have any sort of problem with that, so why toss out this red herring?

It's not a red herring Ed. It's the 99%ers vs. the 1%ers, regardless of how the money is earned. Those were the parameters the OWS set with its mantra--that the 1% is getting over at the expense of the remaining 99%.

And Wall Street did not crash the economy by itself. Government and massive numbers of unqualified home buyers had a little to do with it. 

[Conan71]

Algore and President Obama having Nobels are all you need to know about the validity of The Krugs Nobel.

They've lost all credibility since they decided to make overtly liberal choices on their awards.  Have they become like a star on Hollyweird Boulevard? Pay $5 or $10K to get your "award"?