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

[Conan71]

And another doublespeak moment!!! 

Exactly correct!!  Just the wrong direction.  What right to the 1% have to the lives of everyone else?  OWS is not very coherent at times, but they do appear to understand that a fundamental unfairness and inequity exists and they are protesting it.  (Much the same way the tea baggers did.)  You remember that one...where the richest are disproportionally rewarded and the 99% subsidize it for them so they can keep their 15% tax rates....let's not keep losing track of reality, shall we?

What was the Castro revolution all about Heir?  Pretty much the exact same thing.  That was so successful that thousands fled Cuba for our beaches.

Fundamental unfairness?  If you really think it's unfair move somewhere that wealth redistribution is a reality and realize that the standard of living for most people is much lower than even the poor enjoy here. 

[Teatownclown]

Gassie, bet you can't celebrate all those polticians in DC on the Corporate payrolls looking out for what's not neccesarily in your best interests.

[Conan71]

Disrupting commerce is actually not a crime.  It is an inconvenience but it isn't a crime.  You can serve no time for the crime of depriving a business of rightful profit by standing in the road.  If this were true, most largescale urban construction projects would also be crimes.  So would the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.  You're actually confusing your personal Randian moral universe and the codified law of the US.  Thankfully, two very different environments. 

Again, the OWS people have been protesting mostly peacefully for two months. I understand you disagree with their purpose for protesting.  That's a separate issue from how best to treat them as protesters.  Unless, of course, you see their position as somehow making them less than human, or less than full citizens, or somehow undeserving of all the rights and privileges we have as Americans.  Is that the argument you're making? 

The organizers of the Macy's parade apply for the proper permits to do so.  So does the developer of an urban construction project.  They are impeding traffic flow and/or access to business in a lawful manner.  Protesters blocking a street are not going about it lawfully.  So the specific charge is not impeding commerce or jeopardizing public safety, but that's the reason it is unlawful to assemble in the middle of a busy intersection.  I love how you libs are capable of creating alternate realities with just a little word play. 

[Gaspar]

Gassie, bet you can't celebrate all those polticians in DC on the Corporate payrolls looking out for what's not neccesarily in your best interests.

I don't.  But I would never take away, or impede the rights of others to make that point!

[DolfanBob]

Ok I would say that this topic has occupied the most posts on TNF that I have ever seen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Fundamental unfairness?  If you really think it's unfair move somewhere that wealth redistribution is a reality and realize that the standard of living for most people is much lower than even the poor enjoy here. 

Plaintive bleat moment... "America, Love it or Leave it". 

No.  America, Change it or Lose it.  Coming closer every day.

"Fundamental fairness" is what all the lip service is about when you were raised up studying the ideals of the country.  All men are created equal.  Equal protection of the law...all that kind of stuff.  The question being asked and avoided by the 1% and a surprising number of 99%, like yourself, is where is that protection when the richest are given a boon that everyone else must subsidize.  15% tax rate versus 20 to 25 or more, as one example.

Yeah, yeah, I know...the law in its infinite wisdom forbids the rich man from sleeping under a bridge as well as the poor....

[guido911]

Plaintive bleat moment... "America, Love it or Leave it". 

No.  America, Change it or Lose it.  Coming closer every day.

"Fundamental fairness" is what all the lip service is about when you were raised up studying the ideals of the country.  All men are created equal.  Equal protection of the law...all that kind of stuff.  The question being asked and avoided by the 1% and a surprising number of 99%, like yourself, is where is that protection when the richest are given a boon that everyone else must subsidize.  15% tax rate versus 20 to 25 or more, as one example.

Yeah, yeah, I know...the law in its infinite wisdom forbids the rich man from sleeping under a bridge as well as the poor....

Come on, not all 1%ers live off of investments that are subject to a lower tax. You have been captured by Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" need to pay more--despite that the "rich" who are subject to tax increases are those making $250K or more. Those folks may be a neighbor of yours.

[Conan71]

Plaintive bleat moment... "America, Love it or Leave it".  

No.  America, Change it or Lose it.  Coming closer every day.

"Fundamental fairness" is what all the lip service is about when you were raised up studying the ideals of the country.  All men are created equal.  Equal protection of the law...all that kind of stuff.  The question being asked and avoided by the 1% and a surprising number of 99%, like yourself, is where is that protection when the richest are given a boon that everyone else must subsidize.  15% tax rate versus 20 to 25 or more, as one example.

Yeah, yeah, I know...the law in its infinite wisdom forbids the rich man from sleeping under a bridge as well as the poor....

The rich man contributes far more than just 15% of his income back to society.  I'd go on to say that the vast majority of the 1% give far more back in many ways which don't register with you wealth-envy types.  I assure you that your own job and retirement are heavily dependent on someone or some people in the 1%.  That's why this constant complaining about what the wealthiest do and don't pay in taxes is a bogus argument.  Add up the payroll tax and the collective income tax from all the people they employ and they contribute far more than you give them credit for.  You and the rest of the wealth redistribution mind set fail to realize that higher taxes for the rich will not translate into higher incomes for the rest of us.  It's just one more way for government to justify spending even more money.  People like you who buy into this are nothing more than a useful tool for them to attempt to achieve those means.

And I notice you conveniently edited out how well "fairness" worked for Cuba.  

[guido911]

The rich man contributes far more than just 15% of his income back to society.  I'd go on to say that the vast majority of the 1% give far more back in many ways which don't register with you wealth-envy types.  I assure you that your own job and retirement are heavily dependent on someone or some people in the 1%.  That's why this constant complaining about what the wealthiest do and don't pay in taxes is a bogus argument.  Add up the payroll tax and the collective income tax from all the people they employ and they contribute far more than you give them credit for.  You and the rest of the wealth redistribution mind set fail to realize that higher taxes for the rich will not translate into higher incomes for the rest of us.  It's just one more way for government to justify spending even more money.

And I notice you conveniently edited out how well "fairness" worked for Cuba. 

Conan channeling his inner Schiff (1:42 where the fun begins):

[Hoss]

Come on, not all 1%ers live off of investments that are subject to a lower tax. You have been captured by Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" need to pay more--despite that the "rich" who are subject to tax increases are those making $250K or more. Those folks may be a neighbor of yours.

There are a lot of them though.

Look, I've remained mainly quiet on this issue because for the most part, I understand what their beef is, but I think they direct alot of their ire at the wrong people or group of people.

First off, not all people in the top 1% sit around all day long thinking of ways circumvent the current tax code.  Is the current tax code right now aligned to make it easier for those with wealth to find loopholes?  Sure it is.  If you want to keep alot of your money, you'll try and find those loopholes.  Or you'll hire someone to do it for you.  Even if you're a 99er.

Alot of the problem right now is that many business owners (which could be individuals, or, in the case of where I work, a group of investors, or a unified investment group) don't know how the economy is going to shake out.  So instead of hiring, they're bankrolling money.  Unemployment remains flat or even creeps up a little.  Who could blame them.  If you think you're going to lose your job, and you have a decent amount of money in your primary checking account through good spending habits, you're not going to go out and hire a maid or a nanny that you might not need, but might actually help you in the long run because he or she would free up your time to be creative and increase your income by allowing you more time to work.

They should be, however, more mad at those people who put our asses in this mess.  AIG/Goldman Sachs/BofA (I know, I'm a customer of theirs, but for a small checking account only) deserve the lions' share here.  Wasn't that who the main beef was with the begin with?  Should it not be?  These three entities, specifically AIG, nearly bankrupted the country with their spending habits.  And the government fell for their 'Too Big To Fail' meme.

We should also be mad with every president since Reagan (D and R) for de-regulation and more de-regulation of the financial sector.  It allowed these companies to go out and spend like a drunk sailor with an American Express Gold Card.  And why wouldn't they?  They learn by example (i.e. the GubMINT).  The Republicans keep saying 'don't regulate, the market will work itself out'.  We saw what that did in 2008.  I have a hard time believing alot of them would even say it in these times when our ND is now at $15 trillion.

Be mad at those institutions.  Be mad at ponzi schemes.  Be mad at our government for falling hook/line/sinker for the 'help us, help us' corporate attitudes.  Be mad at the 'golden parachutes'.  Be mad at the frivolous, lavish parties these companies threw while we were bailing them out.  Stop being angry at people, who, through hard work, have earned enough money to make them comfortable and living in the 1 percent.  They're not the enemy here.  Don't be mad at the stock broker on Wall Street who is making a living like the rest of us.  Be mad at those on Madison Ave who think that because they run an investment bank, that they should be able to have in their personal bank account enough to start a bank of their own via 'severance packages' and 'consulting fees'.  I'm sick of hearing about people who spend maybe 2 hours a day working and make $50 million a year from stock options and base salary complain about being castigated by the government because they feel like they're getting 'what they're worth'.

It's not what I would consider any of them worth.

[Conan71]

Conan channeling his inner Schiff (1:42 where the fun begins):

I love it when he pwns the lady in the mortgage business starting at around 2:40.

[guido911]

There are a lot of them though.

Look, I've remained mainly quiet on this issue because for the most part, I understand what their beef is, but I think they direct alot of their ire at the wrong people or group of people.

First off, not all people in the top 1% sit around all day long thinking of ways circumvent the current tax code.  Is the current tax code right now aligned to make it easier for those with wealth to find loopholes?  Sure it is.  If you want to keep alot of your money, you'll try and find those loopholes.  Or you'll hire someone to do it for you.  Even if you're a 99er.

Alot of the problem right now is that many business owners (which could be individuals, or, in the case of where I work, a group of investors, or a unified investment group) don't know how the economy is going to shake out.  So instead of hiring, they're bankrolling money.  Unemployment remains flat or even creeps up a little.  Who could blame them.  If you think you're going to lose your job, and you have a decent amount of money in your primary checking account through good spending habits, you're not going to go out and hire a maid or a nanny that you might not need, but might actually help you in the long run because he or she would free up your time to be creative and increase your income by allowing you more time to work.

They should be, however, more mad at those people who put our asses in this mess.  AIG/Goldman Sachs/BofA (I know, I'm a customer of theirs, but for a small checking account only) deserve the lions' share here.  Wasn't that who the main beef was with the begin with?  Should it not be?  These three entities, specifically AIG, nearly bankrupted the country with their spending habits.  And the government fell for their 'Too Big To Fail' meme.

We should also be mad with every president since Reagan (D and R) for de-regulation and more de-regulation of the financial sector.  It allowed these companies to go out and spend like a drunk sailor with an American Express Gold Card.  And why wouldn't they?  They learn by example (i.e. the GubMINT).  The Republicans keep saying 'don't regulate, the market will work itself out'.  We saw what that did in 2008.  I have a hard time believing alot of them would even say it in these times when our ND is now at $15 trillion.

Be mad at those institutions.  Be mad at ponzi schemes.  Be mad at our government for falling hook/line/sinker for the 'help us, help us' corporate attitudes.  Be mad at the 'golden parachutes'.  Be mad at the frivolous, lavish parties these companies threw while we were bailing them out.  Stop being angry at people, who, through hard work, have earned enough money to make them comfortable and living in the 1 percent.  They're not the enemy here.  Don't be mad at the stock broker on Wall Street who is making a living like the rest of us.  Be mad at those on Madison Ave who think that because they run an investment bank, that they should be able to have in their personal bank account enough to start a bank of their own via 'severance packages' and 'consulting fees'.  I'm sick of hearing about people who spend maybe 2 hours a day working and make $50 million a year from stock options and base salary complain about being castigated by the government because they feel like they're getting 'what they're worth'.

It's not what I would consider any of them worth.

I am hacked off at the bonuses and "golden parachutes" given to those folks at the failed institutions, which is generally contrary to my views of not giving a smile about CEO incomes since they are making me money on my investments. But your point about who the enemy is, this administration wants the American people that the anger over tax policy should be at those gazillionaires out there, despite knowing that many of those small business owners, doctors, lawyers, and other income earners over $250K. I read a story that docs and lawyers combined are a greater percentage of the 1%ers than the bankers. Please don't tell the Pee Partiers, I'd hate to have them occupy St. Francis.  

[guido911]

I love it when he pwns the lady in the mortgage business starting at around 2:40.

That was my favorite part, too. Rendered that talking point mouth silent. Look at the guy in the background reaction when Schiff asked her how people she employs. Same as mine. But his point is well-taken in my opinion. Some of the uber-rich that pay the low tax do contribute in other ways that is beyond the brain-power of some of those protesters.

[patric]

Precicely! They fought and died to protect our rights; to protect our way of life, and our freedom to persue all of the endevors allowed in a free society.  Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are indeed among the most important of these.
...snip...

The problem is that when their message is convoluted or otherwise not strong enough to meet their expectations, they have found it necessary to take activist action outside of the tenants of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

You're perfectly reasonable up to the point you aren't agreeing with "the message" (no matter how convoluted or de-centralized that message might be).   Set aside the message -- they could be worshiping ice cubes for all we care -- what really matters is that they remain free to do so as long as they are peaceful.

So yes, they defy an insignificant ordinance (which at the most, might result in an occasional parking ticket-like reprimand) which has been strategically re-purposed far beyond it's original intent, into a tool directly in conflict with guaranteed, federally-protected civil liberties.  
They are in violation of "a law" which has been corrupted, and they continue to draw our attention to this corruption, by continuing to contest the bad law in a peaceful manner.

When our response to that is violence and intolerance, we haven't made it much past when the bully in the schoolyard was running the show.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Come on, not all 1%ers live off of investments that are subject to a lower tax. You have been captured by Obama's "millionaires and billionaires" need to pay more--despite that the "rich" who are subject to tax increases are those making $250K or more. Those folks may be a neighbor of yours.

I have many friends and a few (very few) family that are in that rich group - 250k or more.  I aspire to be there soon myself...at least that's the plan.
And we talk about the ISO program, too.  For some it is less complication to keep it like it is.  (I presume that is what you found when you looked into it.)

A small handful of others are 'living the dream' - the ISO dream - and I beat their chops mercilessly every chance I get, too.  And hypocritically, I will do it if/when I get there, too, because that is how the tax code says to do it.  And will continue to rail against it the whole time.  Go figure, huh?

None are neighbors - I live in a very small, very much lower middle class neighborhood.

In the meantime, as I have said several times; I have no problem whatsoever letting the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, across the board - including myself.  I say this looking at the financial disaster that my generation - Boomers - and now yours (40 something? - also my kids age) - is inflicting on my grandkids and great grandkids (two and counting...under 60 is WAY too young to have great grandkids!).  Hopefully, your financial situation will never take any adverse turns that hurt your kids.  And I hope they appreciate what you are trying to do for them.  A little extra tax on you will not derail that particular train.  Not paying a little extra now, when it CAN make a difference may be another matter.

We literally have a catastrophe for our society building every day.  And only two things can even hope to alleviate; reduce spending and raising taxes.