Occupy Wall St.

[BobD]

So when it is not financially expedient we should not be allowed our first amendment right of free speech and to protest? Come on. I don't completely agree with them but you can't take it away from them.

Well, when we run out of money to support the almost 20% unemployed, the 30,000 prisoners we have to let go early due to budget shortfalls, all the illegals and the career welfare group, I'm going tell them it's the hippies fault and they'll come looking for you.

 

[NankerPhelge]

I don't think that matters, lets say they paid 40% of income tax, but they made 38% of the money. Who cares that paid 40% as that is pretty close to the total percentage that they made. you really need to know both numbers to get an accurate picture (and yes I will try to find both out for you but I don't know if I can).

I don't know whether I agree with your reasoning or not--requires further thought. I have a hard time believing that if you added up all the dollars that the top 1% earns that it will be much greater than 5% of what the other 99% earns. I'll have to research. But, assuming just for the sake of discussion that this is pretty accurate, then I wonder what the justification would be if, say, 30% of total tax revenue came from this top 1%? Again, I'll need to look into it more, but I really do think these figures are pretty close, if my memory serves. Can't count on that as much, anymore, though.

 

[IrishLax]

You are correct. The US government has made over $10billion on TARP.


I might be wrong, but it is the only time I can remember that our government made that type of ROI on anything.

Yeah OK that's in line with what I've heard... so... you might hate the bailouts on principle, but it's ridiculous to suggest they were a poor decision.

 

[woolybug25]

Well, when we run out of money to support the almost 20% unemployed, the 30,000 prisoners we have to let go early due to budget shortfalls, all the illegals and the career welfare group, I'm going tell them it's the hippies fault and they'll come looking for you.

Hey... let's not start blaming hippies, we are a peaceful people.


On that note, I know a lot of people many would deem as hippies and not one of them is on any type of government aid. Why do hippies always get lumped in with the scabs of our workforce?

 

[IrishLax]

Hey... let's not start blaming hippies, we are a peaceful people.


On that note, I know a lot of people many would deem as hippies and not one of them is on any type of government aid. Why do hippies always get lumped in with the scabs of our workforce?

South Park.

 

[enrico514]

Goldman Sachs and other banks did pay the money back because as long as they owed money they could not pay bonuses like they had wanted to. Not sure if the government profited from.

Goldman paid back the money and bonuses on Wall Street were higher in 2009 than they were in 2007. The big issue is all the other measures that were taking to keep the party going and the lasting impact they will have on the US balance sheet and economy.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't know whether I agree with your reasoning or not--requires further thought. I have a hard time believing that if you added up all the dollars that the top 1% earns that it will be much greater than 5% of what the other 99% earns. I'll have to research. But, assuming just for the sake of discussion that this is pretty accurate, then I wonder what the justification would be if, say, 30% of total tax revenue came from this top 1%? Again, I'll need to look into it more, but I really do think these figures are pretty close, if my memory serves. Can't count on that as much, anymore, though.

Actually according to the Tax Foundation payed 36.7% of income tax (2009) and made made 16.9% of total AGI (adjusted gross income). So they probably made more as I believe AGI takes into account your write off's and the rich generally have more write offs then the poor.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Their average tax rate was 24.1% according to this table.

 

[autry_denson]

Can you link this poll? Because I'm not sure if we've even nailed down here what those principles are. Wasn't that the question in the OP?

It's here: Poll: 43 percent agree with views of "Occupy Wall Street" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

- 66% (!) said money and wealth should be distributed more evenly in America compared to 26% who said the current distribution is fair.

- 43% said they favor the views of the OWS movement compared to 27% who don't (the other 30% don't know).
(I should have said a plurality support the movement, rather than a majority)

 

[jason_h537]

Can you link this poll? Because I'm not sure if we've even nailed down here what those principles are. Wasn't that the question in the OP?

Would not say the majority agrees but here is a CBS poll from earlier this week. Poll: 43 percent agree with views of "Occupy Wall Street" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Also i found it funny that a Fox News poll said that 70% of their viewers agreed with the general OWS sentiment that as Fox put it "These Folks are right about corporate greed and what is happening to the little guy".

I am out guys. Gonna watch Walking Dead. Hopefully this thread continues to stay as civil as it has when i come back

 

[enrico514]

South Park.

South Park...

Best Of Margaritaville - South Park S13E03 - YouTube

 

[BeauBenken]

I don't know whether I agree with your reasoning or not--requires further thought. I have a hard time believing that if you added up all the dollars that the top 1% earns that it will be much greater than 5% of what the other 99% earns. I'll have to research. But, assuming just for the sake of discussion that this is pretty accurate, then I wonder what the justification would be if, say, 30% of total tax revenue came from this top 1%? Again, I'll need to look into it more, but I really do think these figures are pretty close, if my memory serves. Can't count on that as much, anymore, though.

I've been told they make about 50%

 

[enrico514]

Yeah OK that's in line with what I've heard... so... you might hate the bailouts on principle, but it's ridiculous to suggest they were a poor decision.

TARP was only one small part of the bailout...

 

[BobD]

Hey... let's not start blaming hippies, we are a peaceful people.


On that note, I know a lot of people many would deem as hippies and not one of them is on any type of government aid. Why do hippies always get lumped in with the scabs of our workforce?

Very true, sorry, I should have said protesters, not hippies. Please accept my apologies.

Peace.

 

[pkt77242]

I've been told they make about 50%

I think they have 50% of the wealth of the country, not make 50% of the income, but it is similar.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't know whether I agree with your reasoning or not--requires further thought. I have a hard time believing that if you added up all the dollars that the top 1% earns that it will be much greater than 5% of what the other 99% earns. I'll have to research. But, assuming just for the sake of discussion that this is pretty accurate, then I wonder what the justification would be if, say, 30% of total tax revenue came from this top 1%? Again, I'll need to look into it more, but I really do think these figures are pretty close, if my memory serves. Can't count on that as much, anymore, though.

You wouldn't be alone on that.

The report (pdf) "Building a Better America -- One Wealth Quintile At A Time" by Dan Ariely of Duke University and Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School (hat tip to Paul Kedrosky), shows that across ideological, economic and gender groups, Americans thought the richest 20 percent of our society controlled about 59 percent of the wealth, while the real number is closer to 84 percent.

The percentage of our nation's income from the top 1% is actually much higher than 5% and has been that way for a very long time.

 

[IrishLax]

It's here: Poll: 43 percent agree with views of "Occupy Wall Street" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

- 66% (!) said money and wealth should be distributed more evenly in America compared to 26% who said the current distribution is fair.

- 43% said they favor the views of the OWS movement compared to 27% who don't (the other 30% don't know).
(I should have said a plurality support the movement, rather than a majority)

Thanks!

FYI, if we're talking about distribution of wealth, there is absolutely no correlation between distribution of wealth and the strength of an economy/happiness of people. Some of the best economic times for everyone have occurred when distribution of wealth was even greater than it is today.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Look at Table 3. Clinton era had a MUCH bigger share of the wealth held by the top 1% than there is today. I think looking at the facts shows that putting blame on the rich for having too much wealth is the wrong argument to have; instead we should be focused on how to get them to use that wealth to pay people for goods/services (jobs). If the private sector isn't creating jobs, maybe the answer is more taxes to take that money and use it to improve the country's infrastructure.

On the flip side, doing things like legalizing marijuana would create thousands upon thousands of private sector jobs immediately. Most people have no idea how much revenue Mexican drug cartels make off of weed... if you made that legal, you could tax it heavily like cigarettes and both the Government and private businesses would thrive. So would getting rid of a lot of EPA regulations. But are those choices we want to make as a society?

I think one thing we can all agree on is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't go fight in wars and then not also make cuts to pay for it. You can't keep social security the way it is and not increase social security taxes to pay for it. We can't continue to act like irresponsible 16 year old girls with daddy's credit card. But as long as there is no true oversight for Government spending this is how things will continue to be. The worst thing the supreme court ever did was rule the line item veto unconstitutional.

 

[pkt77242]

Thanks!

FYI, if we're talking about distribution of wealth, there is absolutely no correlation between distribution of wealth and the strength of an economy/happiness of people. Some of the best economic times for everyone have occurred when distribution of wealth was even greater than it is today.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Look at Table 3. Clinton era had a MUCH bigger share of the wealth held by the top 1% than there is today. I think looking at the facts shows that putting blame on the rich for having too much wealth is the wrong argument to have; instead we should be focused on how to get them to use that wealth to pay people for goods/services (jobs). If the private sector isn't creating jobs, maybe the answer is more taxes to take that money and use it to improve the country's infrastructure.

On the flip side, doing things like legalizing marijuana would create thousands upon thousands of private sector jobs immediately. Most people have no idea how much revenue Mexican drug cartels make off of weed... if you made that legal, you could tax it heavily like cigarettes and both the Government and private businesses would thrive. So would getting rid of a lot of EPA regulations. But are those choices we want to make as a society?

I think one thing we can all agree on is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't go fight in wars and then not also make cuts to pay for it. You can't keep social security the way it is and not increase social security taxes to pay for it. We can't continue to act like irresponsible 16 year old girls with daddy's credit card. But as long as there is no true oversight for Government spending this is how things will continue to be. The worst thing the supreme court ever did was rule the line item veto unconstitutional.

I mostly agree, I am all for legalizing weed as long as we come up with an accurate field test so we can tell if people are driving under the influence. Then tax the **** out of it and balance the budget.

 

[BobD]

I mostly agree, I am all for legalizing weed as long as we come up with an accurate field test so we can tell if people are driving under the influence. Then tax the **** out of it and balance the budget.

I disagree with this 100%. The effects of marijuana like poor coordination & judgment, short term memory loss, shortened attention span, decreased energy & ambition and the impaired ability to communicate or relate to others..... We have enough problems in America already. The very last thing we need is more weed.

Now that I've listed and reread all of those side effects, I'm convinced most of the people I know or work with and everyone in Washington DC, is stoned.

I have no problem if someone wants to smoke a joint, take a vacation, go to Amsterdam or Jamaica, let loose, then come home to civilization and make due with the occasional adult beverage.

 

[pkt77242]

I disagree with this 100%. The effects of marijuana like poor coordination & judgment, short term memory loss, shortened attention span, decreased energy & ambition and the impaired ability to communicate or relate to others..... We have enough problems in America already. The very last thing we need is more weed.

Now that I listed all of those side effects, I'm convinced most of the people I work with and everyone in Washington DC with, is stoned.

you could say the same **** about alcohol, so should that be illegal?

 

[IrishLax]

I disagree with this 100%. The effects of marijuana like poor coordination & judgment, short term memory loss, shortened attention span, decreased energy & ambition and the impaired ability to communicate or relate to others..... We have enough problems in America already. The very last thing we need is more weed.

Now that I listed all of those side effects, I'm convinced most of the people I work with and everyone in Washington DC with, is stoned.

Alcohol has just as detrimental, if not more so, symptons. I guess you're also in favor of prohibition.

#1920s #thatsureworkedoutwell

 

[woolybug25]

I disagree with this 100%. The effects of marijuana like poor coordination & judgment, short term memory loss, shortened attention span, decreased energy & ambition and the impaired ability to communicate or relate to others..... We have enough problems in America already. The very last thing we need is more weed.

Now that I've listed and reread all of those side effects, I'm convinced most of the people I know or work with and everyone in Washington DC, is stoned.

I have no problem if someone wants to smoke a joint, take a vacation, go to Amsterdam or Jamaica, let loose, then come home to civilization and make due with the occasional adult beverage.

Let me you a serious question. If weed was legal tomorrow, would you start smoking it?

 

[BobD]

Alcohol has just as detrimental, if not more so, symptons. I guess you're also in favor of prohibition.

#1920s #thatsureworkedoutwell

I edited my post before reading your reply...please see my edited version

 

[IrishLax]

I edited my post before reading your reply...please see my edited version

See that just doesn't hold water with me though. I want you, or anyone, to really give me one discreet reason/example why smoking weed is worse or different than drinking alcohol. If anything, people who drink alcohol are more destructive than people who smoke weed.

 

[BobD]

Let me you a serious question. If weed was legal tomorrow, would you start smoking it?

Absolutely not. I did enough damage to myself when I was a stupid kid.

 

[BeauBenken]

Let me you a serious question. If weed was legal tomorrow, would you start smoking it?

Maybe if I had the cash. lol

 

[NankerPhelge]

QUOTE=woolybug25;580570]You wouldn't be alone on that.



The percentage of our nation's income from the top 1% is actually much higher than 5% and has been that way for a very long time.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Wooley. I hope I made it clear that this 5% was pretty much a guess. But I don't see where your post really answers the question. One bloke says that the top 1% "control" 89% of the wealth. I don't know what this means, or what it means to "control" wealth. Seems pretty nebulous to me. On the other hand, your Congressional Budget Office table may be closer to the original discussion I was having with Jason. If the top 1% make 18.1% of the income, then that is one number we were looking for. If that is the case, for the sake of discussion, then would it be fair to expect that 1% to contribute more than 18.1% of the total tax revenue? If so, why?

 

[BobD]

See that just doesn't hold water with me though. I want you, or anyone, to really give me one discreet reason/example why smoking weed is worse or different than drinking alcohol. If anything, people who drink alcohol are more destructive than people who smoke weed.

I'm not going to attempt to defend alcohol, that would be like defending cigarettes (I haven't smoked in over 4 years now! WOOHOO!). I do enjoy the occasional beer, margarita or martini, but I'd never say it's a healthy indulgence.

Here's a (probably not so great) analogy I came up with: Pot being illegal is like having speed limits.

Speeding on the freeway is illegal. I drive over the speed limit almost everyday on my commute to work, but the speed limit helps keep me in check, I don't drive 100 mph because I don't want to pay the consequences, if I get caught. I also don't want the government to go and eliminate speed limits, because that would just be insane and unsafe for everyone.

 

[Mr. Larson]

Thanks!

FYI, if we're talking about distribution of wealth, there is absolutely no correlation between distribution of wealth and the strength of an economy/happiness of people. Some of the best economic times for everyone have occurred when distribution of wealth was even greater than it is today.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Look at Table 3. Clinton era had a MUCH bigger share of the wealth held by the top 1% than there is today. I think looking at the facts shows that putting blame on the rich for having too much wealth is the wrong argument to have; instead we should be focused on how to get them to use that wealth to pay people for goods/services (jobs). If the private sector isn't creating jobs, maybe the answer is more taxes to take that money and use it to improve the country's infrastructure.

On the flip side, doing things like legalizing marijuana would create thousands upon thousands of private sector jobs immediately. Most people have no idea how much revenue Mexican drug cartels make off of weed... if you made that legal, you could tax it heavily like cigarettes and both the Government and private businesses would thrive. So would getting rid of a lot of EPA regulations. But are those choices we want to make as a society?

I think one thing we can all agree on is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't go fight in wars and then not also make cuts to pay for it. You can't keep social security the way it is and not increase social security taxes to pay for it. We can't continue to act like irresponsible 16 year old girls with daddy's credit card. But as long as there is no true oversight for Government spending this is how things will continue to be. The worst thing the supreme court ever did was rule the line item veto unconstitutional.

Most people also don't realize how powerful the war on drugs has made Mexican drug cartels. Phoenix is the #2 spot in the world for kidnappings thanks to the cartels. Iranian officials are accused of contracting with Los Zetas to kill the Saudi embassador (and allegedly bomb the Israeli Embasy in Washington and Israeli and Saudi Embassies in Argentina).

Oh, and these are sick people:

Mexican drug cartels force kidnap victims to fight to the death in gladiator-style contests | Mail Online

From a foreign policy standpoint the best way to seize the power of the cartels would be to end the war on drugs. The US has budgeted $23 Billion this year alone on this failed "war". End it. Destroy the cartels power base.

 

[CanadianIrish]

QUOTE=woolybug25;580570]You wouldn't be alone on that.



The percentage of our nation's income from the top 1% is actually much higher than 5% and has been that way for a very long time.

Thanks, Wooley. I hope I made it clear that this 5% was pretty much a guess. But I don't see where your post really answers the question. One bloke says that the top 1% "control" 89% of the wealth. I don't know what this means, or what it means to "control" wealth. Seems pretty nebulous to me. On the other hand, your Congressional Budget Office table may be closer to the original discussion I was having with Jason. If the top 1% make 18.1% of the income, then that is one number we were looking for. If that is the case, for the sake of discussion, then would it be fair to expect that 1% to contribute more than 18.1% of the total tax revenue? If so, why?[/QUOTE]

Firstly, there is a difference between wealth and income. Wealth (i.e. assets) is even more skewed than income.

Secondly, if the top 1% paid taxes directly in proportion with their income, that would require a flat tax rate. That kind of idea would represent a drastic redistrubtion of wealth in favour of the rich, and would result in one of two things: either the poor would become even worse off, or secondly government finances would be even worse off. Neither is even remotely acceptable. From an academic standpoint, it's not even something that's endorsed by Adam Smith or other free market ideologists until the last ten years.

The reality is the that modern "conservatives" are far more right wing and pro-rich than even the founders of right wing ideology. The modern right is engaged in an all out attack on taxation and the legitimacy of government. It's an incredibly dangerous way of thinking, and makes no sense to me.

Finally, the reality is that every great power has risen when the middle class becomes ascendant, and has fallen when they the society becomes corrupt and becomes controlled by the wealthy. That the United States is simply ignoring this now and is engaged in an all out attack on the middle class for the benefit of the rich is concerning. Moreover, that it's simultaneously tied to an attack on academia and science baffles the mind.

I simply cannot understand how the modern "conservative" thinks, and given that they despise academia and science, there really is no reasoning with them.

 

[gkautz10]

See that just doesn't hold water with me though. I want you, or anyone, to really give me one discreet reason/example why smoking weed is worse or different than drinking alcohol. If anything, people who drink alcohol are more destructive than people who smoke weed.

This is very funny to me because I am in a foreign policy class so of course all of these things everyone is bringing up, we have talked about extensively. But it seems on a daily basis the entire argument somehow funnels itself back to the legalization of marijuana and how it can help the economy. And the proponents of this argument have no good facts to back up why weed is worse than say alcohol or cigarettes. I agree with your argument, name the last time you knew or heard of someone who got in a car accident because they were only high. Now I am not saying I am all for legalizing weed, but lets take a look at the effects it could have on the American economy. 1) It would reduce our budget shortfalls and possibly eliminate it all toegther. 2) Everyone getting the munchies would boost money being spent in the economy (my own personal opinion, but I think it is quite funny and logical). I think we can take a look at Amsterdam and see how they structure their laws and regulations on weed. A little known fact by people who are against weed being legalized is since weed has been legalized in Amsterdam, their crime rate inside the red light district has actually decreased. My last point on this is how if weed was legalized, do you think the use of it would still be as widespread in the long term? Of course there would be a huge increase in use at first, but I think that is similar to how underage drinking is today. Most teens drink underage and do it because it is illegal and then once they turn 21, they have the grandeur of going to the bar for a few months, then it gets old, expensive, and not so cool. I think legalizing weed would follow the same trend. Yes there would be people who smoke it from day 1 until they die, but we are going to have those people anyway, and the average decent American would probably not continue to smoke weed over a prolonged period of time. Overall though about the occupy wall street thing. I am in favor of the 1% being taxed like everyone else and like many of you think the bailouts were bs. How can GM take a bailout of some ungodly amount of money one month and pay it back in 3 and then make a commercial telling the general public how great of people you are for accepting OUR money but paying it back already and giving all of your head honchos massive bonuses that year? There is something fundamentally wrong with our country but I have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to diagnose it. One thing I do know is we got into this whole mess because of investment bankers and there bs role in the government and the deregulation of banks and derivative trading and until the CEO's of these investment banks are out of the government, we will wallow in our own misery. If you disagree with me thats fine, but watch The Inside Job and then try to disagree.