love this

[RIJIMMY]

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?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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

The 53%: Occupy Wall Street backlash - Oct. 26, 2011

[RIROCKHOUND]

[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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

individual sacrifices have to be paid for the good of the whole

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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.

[zimmy]

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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[striperman36]

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[RIJIMMY]

heres a sample of the participants across the country

Meet the 99%

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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

enough said.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

" 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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[JohnR]

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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 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.