Sure, some will say this is the minority but I dont think so, this is consistent with most of the opinions I have heard at the occupy sites. yes, there were some wackos at the tea party protests but way less than here,,,,,'
'

Occupy Wall Street Parasites: North Korea Better than South Korea, Socialism to replace Capitalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L088WJ9c98)

Weren't you one of the ones arguing that even though the Tea Party rallies were full of nitwits, we shouldn't discount the cor principles of the movement?

Some of the most productive workers in the world (Germans) couldn't make socialism work but these folks will. :yak5:


Hey - look at the 2:45 mark, Eben stops himself just in time from picking his nose on video :love:

Elizabeth Warren says she ‘created intellectual foundation’ for Occupy Wall Street movement - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/elizabeth-warren-says-she-created-intellectual-foundation-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/eXimmRDbpeHoNBkKRmOsBL/index.html?p1=News_links)

Blame Warren. she claims it's all her intellectualism, that started it.

I think she and Al Gore started youtube.

the "core princilpes" of the Tea Party were demonstrated as they handed out pocket Constitutions, called for a return to the "core principles" that this country was founded on, held permitted rallys and cleaned up after themselves and slept in hotels rather than in the streets and parks of America.....

the "core principles" of this mob are on full display and unlike many of the claims that were made against the Tea Party which could not be substantiated, these jokers are happy to provide plenty of audio and video as evidence...

the former was/is calling for a rebuilding of America based adherence to it's founding principles

the latter is calling for(and has been for a long time) a destruction of America as founded and "fundamental transformation".....Obama just hasn't moved fast enough for their liking and they probably fear that they are running out of time.....

not that hard to understand...........

and don't call them socialists :biglaugh:

interesting to note those that had nothing but disdain and venom for the Tea Party....and who is now lining up in support of these people

interesting to note those that had nothing but disdain and venom for the Tea Party....and who is now lining up in support of these people

Actually, I think most are lining up in support of their right to protest. I also think there is a lot of similarity between the grabbing of soundbites from crackpots or extremists on both sides to paint one as racist and the other as violent stoners (oxymoron?)

I'm pretty ambivalent on these Occupy protests.
do I think there a bunch of people there for the wrong reasons? Absolutely.

Do I think their message is clouded and multi-stung depending on which person you talk to.
Yup.

Are there a lot of them who are really just frustrated, and don't want the world handed to them, but just want to see more opportunities for jobs and careers? I think so. Will these protests go to that end? Probably not.

the "core princilpes" of the Tea Party were demonstrated as they handed out pocket Constitutions, called for a return to the "core principles" that this country was founded on, held permitted rallys and cleaned up after themselves and slept in hotels rather than in the streets and parks of America.....

the "core principles" of this mob are on full display and unlike many of the claims that were made against the Tea Party which could not be substantiated, these jokers are happy to provide plenty of audio and video as evidence...

the former was/is calling for a rebuilding of America based adherence to it's founding principles

the latter is calling for(and has been for a long time) a destruction of America as founded and "fundamental transformation".....Obama just hasn't moved fast enough for their liking and they probably fear that they are running out of time.....

not that hard to understand...........

and don't call them socialists :biglaugh:

interesting to note those that had nothing but disdain and venom for the Tea Party....and who is now lining up in support of these people johnny, scott sums it up. The wacko percentage is much higher with this bunch. As analysis has proved the tea party is made up of WORKING people....ie taxpayers. Id love to see the analysis of incomes and taxes paid by this crew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, I think most are lining up in support of their right to protest.

is that what they are doing?

is that what they are doing?

I think the people bringing up the tea party are are bringing them up in support of their rights to protest

clarified...

Scott W nailed it. The Tea Party and this group of anarchists, could not have LESS in common.

There were zero cases of mass arrests at Tea Party rallies. The OWS group is nothing but a feral, radical, anarchist, marxist mob. Every single occupation is a violation of local laws, where they are daring elected officials to enforce duly constituted laws.

On a positive note, they are also doing more damage to Obama than anyone else could, because they are forcing him to side with them, which will only alienate Obama from the moderates he needs (and ain't gettin') to win in 2012.

From where I sit, I'm lovin' what I see...

I think the people bringing up the tea party are are bringing them up in support of their rights to protest

clarified...

they got permits, they showed up, they cleaned up after themselves and they left...rights + responsibilities

these peole have shown up, overstayed their time and are making a mess and harassing the people that also have a "right" to the various locations

no comparison...sorry


I heard a long interview with two of the Ocupy Prov. organizers the other day who had little to offer with regard to what exactly their purpose was "spokesmen"........ but the money quote from them was..."we decided that we could sit in our office all day and complain that grants and funding weren't coming in...or we could get out there and do something"...so now they are camped out on the street with a bunch of losers ...

I also think there is a lot of similarity between the grabbing of soundbites from crackpots or extremists on both sides to paint one as racist and the other as violent stoners (oxymoron?)



That is not how RIJimmy sees it. As he repeatedly does, if he can find a video or a report of someone from the party he hates, he states it is indicitive of that whole party.

The demographics seem much different b/t the 2 groups. The teabaggers where much older folks so comparing income levels is laughable.

but just want to see more opportunities for jobs and careers? I think so. .

And how does storming the Brooklyn Bridge, throwing a brick through a bank window, or urinating in a public park, increase one's chances of landing a productive job, exactly?

The demands I see include a $20/hr minimum wage, and immediate forgiveness of all debt (student loans, credit card debt, mortgage debt).

Do you know what the unemployment rate would be if the minimum wage was $20 an hour?

Their demands can be summed up thusly...GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!

Their demands can be summed up thusly...GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!

And the teabaggers demands can be summed up in "I don't want to pay any taxes for anything or want any of my taxes to go to support anyone less fortunate than myself"

2 extremes which don't represent the vast majority of the population.

That is not how RIJimmy sees it. As he repeatedly does, if he can find a video or a report of someone from the party he hates, he states it is indicitive of that whole party.

The demographics seem much different b/t the 2 groups. The teabaggers where much older folks so comparing income levels is laughable.

Paul, I research, I listen, I learn. Nice try but I have read everything I could on the occupy movement, liberal talk radio, you name it. Do some searching and you will clearly see that the majority are people who are looking for handouts. The web is FULL of these idiots. FULL. The demographics ARE NOTthat different from the tea party- many occupy people are 30s, 40s, 50s. The difference in income levels is that tea parties busted their butts to make money, occupy people took student loans to study sociology, french art and now cant afford to pay the loans. Waa, waa, waa.

And the teabaggers demands can be summed up in "I don't want to pay any taxes for anything or want any of my taxes to go to support anyone less fortunate than myself"

2 extremes which don't represent the vast majority of the population.

PaulS, the demands I posted are actual demands from the occupiers websites. That is irrefutable FACT. A $20/hr minimum wage and elimination of all debt. I'm not making that up, that's what they say they want.

You respond by making up radical jibberish (not wanting to pay any taxes) that are positions that have never been endorsed by the Tea Party. Go ahead PaulS, you post a link showing where any official Tea Party group said they don't want to pay any taxes.

The Tea Party does NOT want a 0% tax rate. We want responsible, sustainable tax rates. If that sounds radical to you, so be it. But don't compare that position to the notion that we can eliminate all debt with the push of a button.

I'm sorry if the actual facts make liberals seem deranged, but don't take that out on Tea partiers.

You may also be interested to know (though I doubt it) that conservatives have been shown to actually be more generous than liberals (more likely to donate time to charity, more likely to give $$ to charity, more likely to give blood). This makes sense to me, as conservatives are more religious, as a group, than liberals. The study was called Who Really Cares, and here is an analysis of it from the New York Times, which even though it's a liberal rag, could not refute it.

Op-Ed Columnist - Bleeding Heart Tightwads - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html)

Here you go paul......remember, these kids are EDUCATED. Im not quoting the few random rednecks at a tea party rally.

Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That's What He Wants - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc)

Occupy Wall Street (FULL) Interview with Chris Hedges Part 1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SKw2j3XOY0)

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Y9CARUwio)

Hmmm Paul, I guess I missed this type of dialog at the rea party rallies.....are you a history buff? Any memory of what was the underlying themes behind hitler and stalin? They hated the banks and the 1%
for you baby - Occupy Wallstreet: More Examples of Antisemitism and Racism by Leftist Anarchists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q55OAozWeNo&feature=related)

Every newscast I have seen of the occupiers is of 20 somethings with a small mixture of older folks. The teabaggers were much, much older - and from many of the comments I saw, I would call them idiots, morans, selfish bastards, etc. HA, HA, HA

I don't doubt that cons. donate more to charities. But isn't a large % of it self serving and going to their churches - I know a large part of my donations goes to my church?

Shouldn't you also be commenting on their looks?

The *ant* works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house
and laying up supplies for the winter.

The *grasshopper* thinks the *ant* is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering *grasshopper *calls a press conference and
demands to know why the *ant* should be allowed to be warm and well fed
while he is cold and starving. *

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN,* and *ABC*
show up to provide pictures of the shivering *grasshopper *next to a video
of the *ant* in his comfortable home with
a table filled with food.*
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. *

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor *grasshopper *
is
allowed to suffer so? *

Hmmm, would you HIRE these people or would you hire someone from a tea party rally...

10 Million Green Jobs ** Cramdown Student Loans - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUqRQCSaDjY)


look at this one...."why is my brother saddled down with 25K in student loans?" because he signed the paperwork, no one forced him to!

'Occupy Wall Street' sets up camp - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx19waGfSiM&feature=related)

Paul, are you "oppresed by your masters" ?
OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVROjXpyu7k&feature=related)

[QUOTE=PaulS;896180]Shouldn't you also be commenting on their looks?

QUOTE]

should I? In my teens and 20s I had hair down to my mid-back, I was nicknamed "Jerry" because I always wore tie dies, I had both ears pierced multiple times and I have many tattoos.
I never asked for a dime from anyone, played in bands, travelled all over the country. I look at the world as my oyster. Nothing holds me back. Some hippie, free thinking types whine and complain about their student loans, others start apple computer and change the world. Whats the difference? The answer is in the mirror.
dont blame the banks, wall st or the government.

Sorry, I can't see videos at work. But again, I'm sure your pulling a video (probl. off a radical right wing website) and attributing it to a whole party.

Why would I care that one person is complaining about his brothers student loans? Just as I didn't cry about a couple of people holding up a Hitler sign w/Obama's photo.

I am providing evidence of the core of the movement, you will choose to ignore it. Here is CBS news stating that student loans are a big part of the beyotch. This guy is in boston.
In Boston, I've had open positions for MONTHS, publicly posted. Funny his resume never came past my desk......maybe I should have checked the walls of coffee houses for his resume. Maybe a Harvard grad never heard of networking?
Whatever the case, I'm sure its "the mans" fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-e4eBATm4

Sorry, I can't see videos at work. But again, I'm sure your pulling a video (probl. off a radical right wing website) and attributing it to a whole party.

Why would I care that one person is complaining about his brothers student loans? Just as I didn't cry about a couple of people holding up a Hitler sign w/Obama's photo.


nope, sorry, not a radical web site. One called "youtube". Search for your self.

lets hear it straight from the horses mouth - from one of the occupy websites....

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

nope, sorry, not a radical web site. One called "youtube". Search for your self.

Ok, I'll get all my info. off youtube now.:biglaugh:

How did you find those?

Hey Paul S, would you please tell us all where you gotthe idea that tea partiers don't want to pay any taxes, and that they don't want to lift a finger to help anyone less fortunate?

EITHER TELL US WHERE YOU GOT THAT IDEA, OR KINDLY ADMIT THAT YOU MADE IT UP IN ORDER TO DEMONIZE THOSE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE.

Hint: we all know you made it up, which is precisely what liberal ideologues do, when you inevitably back them into a corner by exposing their ideas as the stupid jibberish that they clearly are. Instead of admitting that a $20 minimum wage is stupid, you try to cast tea partiers as "more" stupid. And since no tea partier has ever actually said anything more stupid than that, you can only accomplish your goal by fabricating lies about what we stand for.

That's the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Finally, if you can only refute tea party positions by inventing lies about them, doesn't that mean that we maybe have a valid point?

I SAW IT ON A YOU TUBE VIDEO.

I was just going to state that most of the demands are stupid. This is what they're protesting against - they just aren't articulating it well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?ref=us

I SAW IT ON A YOU TUBE VIDEO.

I was just going to state that most of the demands are stupid. This is what they're protesting against - they just aren't articulating it well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?ref=us

PaulS, if you have a youtube video of a tea party spokesman saying he wants to pay no taxes, please share it. Because I would not want to identify with a group that said such things.

As to your claim of what the occupiers want...you are refusing to admit what they are actually saying, things like debt elimination.

You did bring up a point about the rich getting richer. Allow me to address that.

EARTH TO PAULS, SPENCE, AND OBAMA...

Yes, the rich usually get richer. Guess what? That doesn't do a SINGLE THING to reduce the chances of a poor person getting rich. PaulS, repeat this..."wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza". If Warren Buffet earns another million today (and he will), that DOES NOT mean that there's a million less for the rest of us.

For the most part, the existence of rich folks has NO DETRIMENTAL impact to anyone else. In fact, we are BETTER OFF thanks to rich folks, because they pay a whole lot of taxes (reducing the burden on the rest of us), they give a lot to charity, and many of them create jobs.

Bill Gates and Oprah Winfey aren't holding anyone else back. They might make easy villains to simple-minded marxists, but the facts don't even come close to backing that up.

Instead of admitting that a $20 minimum wage is stupid

absolutely stupid. you don't deserve $20.00hr to flip burgers.

What is not stupid is the idea that we need more jobs in this pay range (something like $15-20/hr). Probably in the manufacturing sector.

I'm not siding with the Occupy protests. but I do believe it is/was originally rooted in a frustration not born out of 'laziness' or a sense of entitlement. Maybe thats what dominating it now...

banishing all debt is also stupid. putting in some ways to make the payback of the loans less crippling is not.

but, I have an undergraduate and graduate degrees (neither in sociology or french art BTW) w/ zero debt. parents helped alot w/ undergrad. moral support only during grad.... I've worked in or out of my field to stay (barely) in the black so I'm only an onbserver on the loan issue.

I SAW IT ON A YOU TUBE VIDEO.

I was just going to state that most of the demands are stupid. This is what they're protesting against - they just aren't articulating it well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us/politics/top-earners-doubled-share-of-nations-income-cbo-says.html?ref=us

Paul, how do you feel about demand #2 in RIJimmy's post?:rotf2:

from cbs news

Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.
However, those most active in the Tea Party are less satisfied with the amount of income taxes they will pay. Fifty-five percent of Tea Party activists - those who have attended a rally or donated money - (about 4 percent of Americans overall) say their income taxes are unfair.
Americans overall are more likely than Tea Partiers to describe the income taxes they'll pay this year as fair - 62 percent do, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12.


Majorities across all income levels say their income taxes are fair, as do most Republicans and Democrats.

ps Paul - you tube is an open, user updated media source. It is neither true nor false, it just is. I posted actual clips from speakers at the movement. Not fox news, not edited. Im sorry I cant take some time off from work adn go down their and video myseld, but do you really think what I'll find will differ from what I posted? really?

Im sorry I cant take some time off from work adn go down their and video myseld, but do you really think what I'll find will differ from what I posted? really?

Just put the earings back in, the tie-dye back on and with the long.... oops... no hair.... you'll fit right in!

absolutely stupid. you don't deserve $20.00hr to flip burgers.

What is not stupid is the idea that we need more jobs in this pay range (something like $15-20/hr). Probably in the manufacturing sector.

I'm not siding with the Occupy protests. but I do believe it is/was originally rooted in a frustration not born out of 'laziness' or a sense of entitlement. Maybe thats what dominating it now...

banishing all debt is also stupid. putting in some ways to make the payback of the loans less crippling is not.

but, I have an undergraduate and graduate degrees (neither in sociology or french art BTW) w/ zero debt. parents helped alot w/ undergrad. moral support only during grad.... I've worked in or out of my field to stay (barely) in the black so I'm only an onbserver on the loan issue.

"What is not stupid is the idea that we need more jobs in this pay range (something like $15-20/hr). Probably in the manufacturing sector."

The fact is, consumers are better off because we get our goods manufactured in places where laborers don't earn anywhere near that much. RIROCKHOUND, if I open a factory and pay everyone $20 an hour, I have to include that cost in the price of my product, and no one would be willing to buy it.

If the occupiers' beef is the loss of manufacturing jobs, why is that Wall Street's fault? The world changed, the economy became global. I don't see why that's the fault of conservatives or Wall Street employees, any more than you can blame the weather on those people (oh wait, liberals DO blame the weather on those people...)

"banishing all debt is also stupid. putting in some ways to make the payback of the loans less crippling is not. "

It IS stupid if you hurt the banks who lent the money (including employees and shareholders), and have the right to expect that the money be repaid under terms that borrowers freely agreed to.

This gets at why these occupiers are laughably stupid to me. Many are protesting the cost of college. I agree college is outrageously expensive. When liberals are outraged by the cost of college, they descend on Wall Street (I have no idea whatsoever the connection between Wall Street and college costs). If they have a problem with college costs, MAYBE they'd be better served talking to college presidents. But they don't do that. Because even though colleges set their own costs, colleges are considered sympathetic to the liberal agenda, so instead, they vent their anger at conservative targets, and they don't care that investment bankers have no say in college costs.

It's an absolute joke, how stupid, misinformed, entitled. and misguided they are.

GREAT ARTICLE - read the note from the guy in the picture!

The 53%: Occupy Wall Street backlash - Oct. 26, 2011 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_backlash/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=hp_bn5)

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896219(oh wait, liberals DO blame the weather on those people...)
[/QUOTE]

1. Correction, climate, not weather. I know some dyed in the woll conservatives who are in this camp as well....

2. I didn't say Occupy was fighting for manufacturing, I was just making a point....

1. Correction, climate, not weather. I know some dyed in the woll conservatives who are in this camp as well....

2. I didn't say Occupy was fighting for manufacturing, I was just making a point....


Rockhound, I'm with you in that I wish there were more good jobs available, and I wish college wasn't so expensive.

Here is where libs lose me...I don't see how people who work in Manhattan are destroying middle class jobs, and I really don't see how they cause college tuition to increase.

If you have a problem, you address it at the source, not at the most salivating political target. These dummies are being duped by Obama (and unions) into believing that wealthy Wall Street bankers are the enemy, and that doesn't pass the common sense smell test.

The teachers union in my town is hurting my family (in the way of insane property taxes to pay for stupidly rich benefits) way more than anyone on Wall Street. That's fact. It may not serve the liberal narrative, but it's fact nonetheless.

johnny, scott sums it up. The wacko percentage is much higher with this bunch. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Proven by what? News coverage?

Like Bryan said, it depends on who you talk to, just as it did with the Tea Party. One difference though is that I haven't seen any reports of the Occupy folks calling for the death of the president.

Proven by what? News coverage?

Like Bryan said, it depends on who you talk to, just as it did with the Tea Party. One difference though is that I haven't seen any reports of the Occupy folks calling for the death of the president.

How's this for proof. Tea Partiers didn't get arrested by the hundreds for storming the Brooklyn Bridge. They didn't get arrested by the hunreds for refusing to leave public parks, private places of business, etc.

The tea party thinks spending needs to be reined in, so they are electing politicians who share this view.

These anarchist kooks say they want a $20 federal minimum wage and cheaper college, and to get that, they descend on Wall Street of all places? That seems rational to you?

And by the way, most of these clowns have Smartphones and sip Starbucks coffee, so I'm not buying their angst to begin with.

If you have a problem, you address it at the source, not at the most salivating political target.
Interesting comment from someone who spins every ill of the country on liberals.

Paul, how do you feel about demand #2 in RIJimmy's post?:rotf2:

individual sacrifices have to be paid for the good of the whole:biglaugh::rollem:

The only other thing that I would agree with on their list of demands is if they said they wanted to change how hedge fund managers are taxed.

Interesting comment from someone who spins every ill of the country on liberals.

Johnny, you doubted the opinion the Tea Partiers are less crazy than occupiers. I responded with FACTS, irrefutable facts. You respond to that by saying that I blame libs for everything?

I expect more from you, you're usually more thoughtful than that. Can you name one thing I've blamed liberals for, that's as asinine as blaming Wall Street for college costs?

I'm bald. If I blamed liberals for that, and I stormed the ACLU headquarters to protest my baldness, THAT would be no less crazy that what these morons are doing.

Proven by what? News coverage?

Like Bryan said, it depends on who you talk to, just as it did with the Tea Party. One difference though is that I haven't seen any reports of the Occupy folks calling for the death of the president.

I posted direct quotes FROM THEIR WEBSITE. Ignore the obvious, it works for you.

Can't we just admint that the tea party is on its last legs. It is so far out of whack from the middle of the road that even Pat Robertson is commenting about it. Both occupy and tea bag fall apart when the pendulum isn't on wacko.

Can't we just admint that the tea party is on its last legs. It is so far out of whack from the middle of the road that even Pat Robertson is commenting about it. Both occupy and tea bag fall apart when the pendulum isn't on wacko.

I don't know about that. At least the Tea Party is protesting (peacefully) the government reign inn out of control costs and spending to stop the slide we are one. OWS wants Evil Wall St / Government to foot a lot of other people's bills, pay for the college, and give them a safe placed to spark another fatty.

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party. I'm sure a lot of people in the Tea Party would rather see Wall St lose some of its greed and foster better conditions for Americans in America while OWS would rather have Wall St take the money from the rich and give to the poor, yet still make sure there is money available in order to redistribute.

I don't know about that. At least the Tea Party is protesting (peacefully) the government reign inn out of control costs and spending to stop the slide we are one. OWS wants Evil Wall St / Government to foot a lot of other people's bills, pay for the college, and give them a safe placed to spark another fatty.

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party. I'm sure a lot of people in the Tea Party would rather see Wall St lose some of its greed and foster better conditions for Americans in America while OWS would rather have Wall St take the money from the rich and give to the poor, yet still make sure there is money available in order to redistribute.

Good post John. The Tea Party is not waning, not by any stretch. They have re-defined the Republican agenda, no doubt about it, and they elected dozens of Congressmen to the House Of Reps just last November. The Tea Party is a force that isn't going away in the near future.

Funny. Most ardent Tea Partiers would say they were opposed to the Wall St bailouts, which is one of the things that OWS is whining about. SO they have that in common.

You are also correct about this, John...what the occupiers want (free college, debt forgiveness, free wealth) simply isn't feasible. It has been tried a million times (because on its face it sounds great), and it fails dismally every single time. If we could just print enough money to make everyone a billionaire and end poverty, no one would oppose that. It simply cannot be done.

You are also correct about this, John...what the occupiers want (free college, debt forgiveness, free wealth) simply isn't feasible. It has been tried a million times (because on its face it sounds great), and it fails dismally every single time. If we could just print enough money to make everyone a billionaire and end poverty, no one would oppose that. It simply cannot be done.

some of the OWS folks are Ron Paul followers and many are against govt intervention.

So who wants to give up time without pay to go protest?

Good post John. The Tea Party is not waning, not by any stretch. They have re-defined the Republican agenda, no doubt about it, and they elected dozens of Congressmen to the House Of Reps just last November. The Tea Party is a force that isn't going away in the near future.

If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done. A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy, medicare, social security, etc. If a Herman Cain or Perry become the candidate, Obama gets re-elected because of Florida, PA, and Ohio. If the non-tea party candidate, Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it. The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers, Obama wins, or Romney gets elected. If Cain or Perry get elected in the general, I will be the first to say I was wrong about the tea party.

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party.

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

ummmmmmmmm.....Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still the democrat LEADERS in Congress..Obama has now effectively passed Carter as the worst president in modern history and has apparently learned nothing and Biden is his VP...these are but the tip of the iceberg of questonable characters who become "progressively" unstable and venomous as you move down the democrat food chain.....the bile being spewed by elected democrats has reached epic proportions in the "age of civility" and a large majority show support...no, true love .....for the leftist radicals that are creating mayhem in our streets ...and they somehow hope that they can ride this counter American revolt together with federally funded union muscle and Obama Money Give Aways sprinkled with charges of racism to an election year victory.....

whose party's candidates are whackjobs and which party has lost credability?

If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done. A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy, medicare, social security, etc. If a Herman Cain or Perry become the candidate, Obama gets re-elected because of Florida, PA, and Ohio. If the non-tea party candidate, Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it. The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers, Obama wins, or Romney gets elected. If Cain or Perry get elected in the general, I will be the first to say I was wrong about the tea party.

"If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done."

Wrong, because unfortunately, they have already done that in Senate races in Nevada and Deleware last year.

"A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy"

I don't disagree with you that most don't side with the tea party on these issues. But first, the number who DO side with the Tea Party (1) is not insignificant, and (2) they all vote. Furthermore, if folks took the time to actually do the math, they would see that it's irrefutable fact that the Tea Party is right...taxing the rich cannot EVEN COME CLOSE to getting us out of this. It's mathematical fact that only deep cuts will work.

"Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it."

You're making some assumptions. If Romney wins, you can bet that his VP pick will be someone specifically designed to energize the Tea Party (like Marco Rubio).

"The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers,"

You're assuming that Tea Party relevence is only measured in the presidential election. Did you read any papers after the November 2010 elections? The GOP opened up a major can of whoop-ass on liberals, and it was largely due to Tea Party enthisiasm. There are literally dozens of United States congressmen who got elected thanks to the tea party. If the economy recovers, it will be the ultimate validation of the Tea Party, not the death bell of the tea party.

There is no way that the GOP nominates anyone other than Romney. There's always an outsider who makes a lot of noise early on. If Cain somehow gets nominated, I agree he'd have a tough time beating Obama, but that's extremely unlikely.

Ask the 50+ Democratic congressmen who got clobbered last November if they think the Tea Party is losing influence, or if they're gaining steam.

The Tea Party has not always been a productive thing (they handed senate seats to the Democrats in Deleware and Nevada last year). But if you think they're not one of the dominant forces in politics today, you are as mistaken as a person can be.

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

If we eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the HIGHEST estimate I've ever seen, is that it would generate $90 billion a year in additional revenue. Our current debt is $14 trillion, and that EXCLUDES the shortfalls in social security and medicare. If you include those programs, our debt is at least $60 trillion. So, if we get $90 billion a year from the tax hikes on the wealthy, it would take a mere 667 years to pay down the debt, and that's ignoring interest.

Zimmy, that math is the exact reason why people like me say it's a waste of time to talk about tax hikes. While it may seem fair to tax the wealthy more, THE IRREFUTABLE FACT is that it's meaningless compared to our debt.

The answer is that massive cuts are needed. I do not like that answer. I really wish that all we needed to do was tweak tax rates on the rich. But the math clearly shows that tax hikes alone cannot even begin to solve this.

Go ahead, Zimmy, tell me where I'm wrong please. You tell me how tax hikes on a small % of our population will generate tens of trillions of dollars. If you can do that, I swear to God I'll campaign for Obama.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

heres a sample of the participants across the country

Meet the 99% (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2011/10/world/hires.occupy.irpt/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

Key themes (with RIJ filter)
- the man is holding us down
- things in the country are not fair
- whaa, whaa, whaa

One girl says - "we the 99% have nothing" Tell me sweetie, who is buying all the iphones, ipads, and ipods......the 1%? Is corporate america forcing you to buy these? My parents didnt have credit cards, we had one tv, no cable tv, old cars.....somehow the managed. Granted things are more expensive now and competition is stiffer. Looks like the youth of america are afraid to compete.

exact quote -
I am here because my friends and family all over the world are suffering. Life should be easy and fun."

enough said.

This is what you get when parents don't use their ability to say NO......

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"
Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

.

The fact that it is impossible to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes (ie Herman Cain) or cut taxes and spend (ie GWB and the republican congress) is very evident in where we are compared to 2000. Bush didn't start with the massive recession. Obama comes in with a massive recession and you beleive the way to fix it is to try to solve 100 years of social economics. Bad timing.

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

Bush came in at the Dot Com bubble so wasn't exactly handed a booming economy. The reason things were not so bad is that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President got together and put together budgets that required being balanced (or close too). Then between wars and increased domestic spending we got out of control, only accelerated with the housing bubble.

WE SPEND TOO MUCH. That is the problem. We take in enough. We spend too much.

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working ;)

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working ;)

See, you and I could run the country :love::rotf2: I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.
I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap.
The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

See, you and I could run the country :love::rotf2: I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( ;) )

Pelosi, Reed, and Frank have no desire to cut on where we spend MOST of the money. They want to cut defense in order to free MORE money for entitlements.

We've been paying for SS / Medicare for our professional lives and they have been borrowing against that to fuel other stuff - like spending more than we take in.

I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.

They have put more and more teat out there for the mob to suckle on.

I used to be a Dem, now I am independent. I refuse to be associated with EITHER party as both are just pocketing the donations and catering to the lobbyists.

At least the Tea Party wants us to stop spending like drunken sailors. They want us to go back to our roots a bit that some smart guys figured out a couple hundred years ago. The left wants to keep kicking the can down the road (I used to love that phrase but it was worn down the past few months) time and time again and point fingers like little sissy 'yotches blaming everyone else but themselves. They REFUSE to buckle down and get something done.

Personally I would like to see 80% of both parties tossed in the klink as enemies foriegn AND DOMESTIC.

Sorry - getting worked up but I do weep for my country.

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. not too hard to figure out actually...

The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap. FactCheck.org: Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton (http://www.factcheck.org/anti-bush_ad_overstates_case_against_halliburton.html)

The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

why would Republicans help Obama?...the Democrats won't even help Obama....he wants to continue many disasterous policies that I'm sure you're "many, many" economists fully support

btw...House Passes Obama Jobs Bill Provision

October 27, 2011 12:57 P.M. By Andrew Stiles
The House overwhelmingly approved a measure to eliminate a much-maligned rule requiring government agencies to withhold 3 percent of payments to government contractors. This provision, which was included in President Obama’s $450 billion “jobs” bill, passed by a vote of 405 to 16.

Earlier this week, the White House announced its support of the House bill, as well as second measure to cover the cost of repealing the rule (about $11.2 billion over ten years) by tightening eligibility requirements for Medicare and other health benefit programs, which the House also passed today, 262 to 157. The idea was taken from the president’s most recent “deficit” package.

The House has now passed a total of 17 jobs bills that are still awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Republicans are hoping to ramp up pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to act.

the "cuts" to which you refer in most cases amount to little more than reductons in the rates of growth of government programs and that is viciously attacked by the dems...

the ONLY time that we can talk about cutting government is during a downturn like this and there shouldn't be an additional penny in increased spending until massive reductions in the size and scope of government occur and future spending is reigned in and current unfunded programs and promises are on solid footing...

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"

You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.

Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.

So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.

"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"

Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.

And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.

You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.

exact quote -
I am here because my friends and family all over the world are suffering. Life should be easy and fun."

enough said.

Exactly what the guy on his 2 year paid paternity leave in Germany said in front of the EU Bank

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896650
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.[/QUOTE]

I knew you wouldn't get it. :uhoh: Liberal rant :rotf2:

PFFFFTTTT!!!! ( ;) )



I do agree that now is a tough time to make cuts BUTTTTTT the times when it was good to make cuts the left side of the aisle SPENT MORE MONEY. THEY REGULATED to the nth degree and have stifled rather than fostered innovation.



2001-2009? That was the left spending the money?

Thermal Imaging Reveals Occupy London Camp Mostly Empty at Night | Video | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/busted-thermal-imaging-reveals-many-occupy-london-tents-empty-at-night/)

Found this kind of damning... Can't even do a protest right... Too dependent on their technology. Probably in a comfy hotel charging their Iphones and drinking a $6 cup of Starbucks... We're getting multiple generations letting their smart phones do ALL their thinking and answering. Get lost in a corn maze or apple orchard, just whip out your Iphone and call 911..... The future looks bleak to me on many fronts. Occupy WS is but the latest demonstration of our nation's continuing downward spiral.

2001-2009? That was the left spending the money?

Some of it ;) - GWB wasn't slow to flow the money either - doesn't make it right.

I knew you wouldn't get it. :uhoh: Liberal rant :rotf2:

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...

You claimed the economy needs govt spending to create jobs, and you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Obama has dumped hundreds of billions into the economy, and unemployment increased. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You also claimed that raising taxes on the wealthy would put a serious dent in our annual deficit, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...Our annual deficit ($1.5 trillion)is 15 times higher than what liberals claim tax hikes on the wealthy would rake in ($90 billion). You offer no reply, because you cannot.

You claim that tax cuts on the wealthy lower tax revenue collected, but you offered no support whatsoever. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, tax revenues collected hit an all-time high. FACT...after the Bush tax cuts, the portion of taxes paid by the wealthy hit an all-time high, which lowers the burden on the rest of us. You offer no reply, because you cannot.

There's simply no talking to liberals. Even when you are mathematically proven wrong, you won't consider re-thinking your position. That's called "brainwashed".

The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree.

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise:uhuh:

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise:uhuh:

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

"a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that..."

We need more tax revenue, meaning, we need more tax dollars. Raising tax rates does not always increase revenue, just like when a store raises prices, that does not mean revenue will increase (not if you price yourself out of the market). If the economy grows, then even at the same tax rates, we have more tax revenue collected. We need to grow the stagnant economy (a raising tide does indeed lift all boats), not reduce anyone's after-tax pay.

Finally, every analysis I've ever seen, suggests that the effect of tax hikes is almost completely meaningless in the face of the debt. We simply cannot generate another $60 trillion in the next 30 years, even if we adopt North Korea's tax rates, we cannot begin to tax our way out of this. The effect of tax hikes is so insignificant, it's barely worth talking about, yet liberals are fanatically fixated on taxing the wealthy.

I do not like the situation we are in. If there was any reasonable analysis out there that said we could put a meaningful dent in the debt by tweaking taxes on the rich, that would make me very happy. I wish that were the case. But it's not.

Tax hikes might get us 10% of what we need. That means that the other 90% must come from spending cuts. I don't like that any more than liberals do. Unlike liberals, however, I am able to accept it.

If Obama is correct, taxing the wealthy more will bring in $90 billion a year. Our ANNUAL deficit is $1.5 trillion, our current debt is $14 trillion, and we need at least another $50 trillion for social security and Medicare (some actuaries say we need $100 trillion).

What is $90 billion a year? Nothing. If we collected $90 billion more in taxes from the rich, and if we used every cent of that to pay off curent debt, all that means is our debt increases $1.41 trillion this year, instead of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo. Our debt is still increasing by more than a trillion dollars.

Scott, where am I wrong? I just don't get it.

simplification of the tax code and elimination of "loopholes" as mentioned would effectively be a tax increase, it would also result in many who share none of the federal burden currently to make a contribution, would make it tougher for politicians to build in set asides and favors through tax policy carrots and business would not find it as necessary to buy favorable status and treatment...the current tax code is the playground of the well connected, all of these foundations and shelters that are little more that political arms of the various interests and government subsidies and investments are doled out based on patronage...

simply raising taxes on "the rich" is a desperate concept being offered by a desperate man in a situation that he loaths, which is that America is no longer in love with him so he needs to return to his roots and drum up some anger.... the people that have money will find ways to shelter their money through the complexities of the current tax code, the people hit the hardest will be those that are upwardly mobile, actively moving, investing and growing their particular field and that's who will be burdened at a time when their investments and energy are needed...

Sorry Zimmy, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I proved you wrong...



The facts may not support your Marxist narrative Zimmy, but them there is still the facts.

If I'm wrong, show me some different facts. I am rational and persuadable.

You are also very humble :biglaugh: I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that :smash:

Arguing about which group is more screwed up - liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans - is like arguing which caliber gun is better to shoot yourself in the head with.

You are also very humble :biglaugh: I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. . Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995.

which one?

1981 = 69.25
1984= 50
1987= 38.5
1988= 29.75
1990= 32.45
1991= 34
1992= 35.8
1993= 36.9
1999= 39.6
2002= 38.6
2011= 35

and which set of tax rules do you want to apply to your new rate?

in 1999 the top 1% paid 36.18% and the top 10% paid 66.45% of all Federal personal income taxes
in 2009 the top 1% paid 36.73% and the top 10% paid 70.47% of all Federal personal income taxes ... source IRS

in a little state teetering on the edge of doom with a left of democrat governor and a democrat treasurer we cannot take even modest steps to address the spending because the people who actually run the state will not stand for it


RI unions say pension problem overstated
By David Klepper
Associated Press / October 27, 2011 PROVIDENCE, R.I.—Rhode Island labor unions that are fighting a proposed public pension overhaul accused state Treasurer Gina Raimondo on Thursday of overstating the problem to justify extreme changes.

Their remarks came during a third day of legislative hearings on a proposal by Raimondo and Gov. Lincoln Chafee and a day after hundreds of supporters and opponents of the legislation filled the Statehouse to weigh in on the bill.

Paul Valletta of the State Association of Firefighters said Raimondo "cooked the books" with actuarial assumptions and conservative market projections that exaggerate the pension system's problems. He accused her of supporting "draconian" changes to the retirement system to raise her political profile.

"She created this problem and now she's riding in on a white horse," Valletta said.

Raimondo, a Democrat, insists that rising pension costs could cripple governments and force tax hikes or budget cuts. The state's unfunded pension liability stands at $7 billion, and the state's pension costs are set to double next year to over $600 million. The state retirement system covers 66,000 public teachers, state and municipal workers, police, firefighters and judges.

You are also very humble :biglaugh: I said a return to the tax rates on the wealthy of Reagan, Clinton, or Bush 1 for that matter would affect the YEARLY DEFICITS. We need to reduce the borrowing first. I then followed with long term deficit reduction requires both tax increases and cuts. Just because you don't understand that, does not mean your statements are facts. I guess supporting the tax policies of each of the last presidents except GWB makes me a Marxist. I am a big boy, you aren't going to make me feel sad or inferior with your name calling. Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995. Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. I think JohnR's thoughts on capital gains taxes are right on target. The most reasonable analysis of economics, in my opinion (I guess if they were your ideas, they would be facts), is that both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues. That is not an original idea of mine, but it makes sense based on mathematics. I will admit, you are right, just taxes can't do it. I have pointed that out each time I have posted. Maybe you missed that :smash:

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.

Zimmy, can you answer a direct question? If social security and medicare need at least $50 trillion in the next 30 years, and you oppose conservative proposals to scale back the benefits, WHAT'S YOUR SOLUTION? Leave that problem for our kids and grandkids?

"Actual taxes paid by the wealthy has declined since 1995."

Really? Can you back that up please? Just because Sean Penn says it, doesn't make it fact.

"Why hasn't that policy created a booming economy? Oh wait, Obama wrecked the economy, that's right. "

The subprime mortgage crisis wrecked the economy. In my opinion, no one party caused that. Lots of blame to go around.

"both taxes and cuts are necessary to solve the long term budget issues."

I have asked you more than once to post some numbers that support the notion that tax hikes can have a meaningful impact. I keep asking, and you keep dodging.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.

Zimmy, in an earlier post, you said tax hikes would put a "big dent", or something like that, in the annual deficit. The annual deficit is $1.5 trillion. From what I recall,liberals say tax hikes on the rich MIGHT get us $90 billion. $90 billion is less than 1/15th of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo.
The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.

We need more tax DOLLARS. If the economy grows, and tax rates stay the same, the feds get more tax dollars. That is the best solution. You cannot even prove that raising tax rates will result in more tax dollars collected...the Bush tax cuts proved that tax rates and tax dollars collected do not always move in the same direction.
Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

To increase taxes without substantial and realistic cuts in spending will stifle growth as uncertainty in the Economy / Future will prevent people from hiring. My boss is considering hiring someone but won't because of uncertainty in the local market. And he is more liberal than Spence :hee:

We have sort of a circle jerk:



Some people want to Raise Taxes - won't work
Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - which means increases in federal assistance with the simultaneous loss of revenue (Taxes of lost jobs).
Some people (The Beast from New Bedford) want to cut defense spending so the money can be reallocated to others (no sheet - he has said this) all without a realistic look at balancing the force. We will be both weaker AND will sacrifice lots of jobs (see circle jerk #2).

We need to find a way to balance cuts and increase revenue by GROWING JOBS. If we put people to solid, decent paying jobs we will generate revenue from taxes and save money spent in assistance, bailouts, and employment recover acts.

We need to find sources of the economy that generate many levels of income. If you give money to road crews go get a little trickle down foe employes, cop details, engineering, and asphalt manufacturing. If you build ships for the Navy (remembering that we are a maritime nation dependent on trade) you trickle money to shipworkers, tool & die manufactures, steel industry, IT, systems engineering, port facilities, and still trickle down to road crews, asphalt manufacturing, and the like. Not to mention you don't send our Navy to sea in old, under maintained ships because the maintenance funds were robbed for some other Congress Pet Project.

There are other worthy avenues money can be sent to which generate multiple levels of prosperity; Bio / Pharma, realistic green jobs, innovation areas where we still have barely an edge - though that is slipping)> Shipbuilding that was just one that I have a glancing familiarity with. Sending the money to build roads - while greatly needed - doesn't much stimulate economy, it is a fairly dead end, no pun intended, that limits the amount of people it helps. Apologize - working on 2 hrs sleep - going to bed.

The deficit did hit 1.5 trillion in 2010 but is shrinking and projected to be about 1/2 as big in a few years. 90 Billion out of $750 B is quite a lot of money, especially when you add up the cumulative impact.


Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time.

To keep taxes low on the "hope" that the economy improves will quite possibly just saddle Americans with more debt. Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING.

If the Bush tax cuts proved anything it's that investment in jobs the past decade was more a function of demand than supply.

-spence

Spence, let's say the annual deficit decreases to $750B in a few years. The total debt in a few years will be north of $20 trillion, and when you factorin Social Security and Medicare, we needt at least $50 trillion. Spence, PLEASE tell me how we raise a significant portion of that by raising tax rates.

"Higher tax rates during a given year will absolutely result in increased tax revenue...every time. "

Spence, are you seriously saying that tax revenues collected would be maximized at tax rates of 100%? Really?

Earth to Spence...the largest tax revenues we ever collected were in the years immediately following the Bush tax cuts? Spence, how can that be? Answer...the growth in the economy more than offset the cut in rates. THAT'S how you do it. Grow the base, not reduce people's after-tax take home pay.

"Don't forget that keeping taxes low during a deficit is actually increased SPENDING."

It's also increased freedom, because the spending is voluntary. I'm all for increased consumer spending, if that's what people freely choose to do. I don't want my taxes increased to give paybacks to businesses like Solyndra that are politically well-connected. I thought the OWS morons were opposed to that type of crony-capitalism, but for some reason, it's OK when liberals payoff their supporters.

You are more inane than usual, Spence. Raising rax rates will not always increase revenue, just like raising prices doesn't always generate more revenue for a business. At some point, you cost yourself out of the market. Page 1 of every economics text says that when you increase the cost of something (including wealth), the demand for that something will decrease. We need to find the sweet spot...raising rates isn't always a goo dthing, just like raising prices isn't always a good thing. At least not here on Earth, where I live.

Some people want to drastically cut spending - which means jobs - .

The feds spent $500 million on Solyndra, which promptly went out of business. Not all spending is smart enough to create jobs. And that spending needs to be paid for at some point.

I don't "want" to cut spending. But I don't want to leave our kids with an bill for $50 or $60 trillion that they had no part of. And unfortunately, the math shows unequivocally that we will not solve this problem with tax hikes. Responding to a $50 trillion hole with tax hikes, seems to me, like making the beds on the Titanic while it's sinking. Maybe it makes some people feel good, but it doesn't address the problem.