Wall Street Protests

[Shryke]

just pointing out the unfairness... or do we still blaming the rich and whining about losing faith in the government, hoping for some magical solutions?

anyway, I'd like to point out the obvious, that there is no "state", rich or that working class mentioned before, there is lower,middle and upper class(which is like the poverty line are relative). the lower class that pays nothing and whines the most about what they should get for their money, the magical upper class and the middle class, that most of us belong to and that pays most of the direct taxation income of the country.

now with life expectancy going up(which is not exactly true, since we are not as much healthier as we are able to extend our life with expansive medicine) we live longer and it cost more to the "state" than they predicated and taxed you for, so instead of living on money that was put aside for you, you living on the "state" expanse. (obviously we also have the lower class, that payed no taxes or lived on welfare and will continue todo so on the "state" expanse).

so as long as there is no solution, we the middle class pay for it. same with your(I thin it was you) solution for health care, it's about the best healthcare we can tax the "state" to pay for it self and the lower class.

the power of the majority who wants more, to rob those who have more ?

What the fuck....

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The message isn't the asinine demands some protesters have posted on the internet, their message is that something is clearly wrong with our economy, and that needs to be addressed by our elected officials.

Assuming you are correct, did we really need them occupying Wall Street to know this? Did everyone really think that everything is going just fine, and that until these protestors got out there, we weren't aware that there was a problem? Everyone knows that there is something clearly wrong with our economy, and they knew it long before these protests. Where is the value in a message that everyone already understood long before you started?

The real issue is that there is disagreement as to how to solve those problems. So to have value, you have to have some sort of reasonable consistency/coherence. Now, I suppose the marchers carrying the banners for "Democratic Socialists of America" may have a coherent ideology, but I don't suspect they're going to have a lot of success convincing a majority of voters to support them.

[Shryke]

I'm pretty sure our end of the bargain was to get out and vote for him and his friends. That's happened in 08.

He blew all his political capital passing one social program, one that seems to piss everyone off, and hasn't done jack shit in regard to economic reform.

Actually he passed several things. ("Both parties are the same" only works if you aren't, say, gay. Or a women. Or a university student. Or paying attention.) And health care reform is a huge deal and is already providing economic savings.

And then his supporters didn't come out in 2010 and the Democrats lost the House and more of the Senate and now they can do even less and have to compromise even more. There's a lesson somewhere here....

That's the entire point behind the protest. Voters(in this case on the left, but the early tea party would quality as well IMO) feel that regardless of how they vote Wallstreet runs Washington. FLOW talked about how the protesters came across as uninformed and lacking real demands and solutions. Last time I checked our entire political system, ie representative democracy, is based on the idea that we vote for the person who best represents our interests, because most of us are uninformed and lack real solutions. Instead we have a system where two groups hold almost identical opinions who represent the interests of their biggest campaign contributors.

They don't hold identical opinions. Not even close.

It's just they are both beholden to one degree or another to moneyed interests. That doesn't mean they are the same though.

[Shryke]

Assuming you are correct, did we really need them occupying Wall Street to know this? Did everyone really think that everything is going just fine, and that until these protestors got out there, we weren't aware that there was a problem??? Everyone knows that there is something clearly wrong with our economy, and they knew it long before these protests.

The real issue is that there is disagreement as to how to solve those problem. So to have value, you have to have some sort of reasonable consistency/coherence. Now, I suppose the marchers carrying the banners for "Democratic Socialists of America" may have a coherent ideology, but I don't suspect they're going to have a lot of success convincing a majority of voters to support them.

These protests are on Wall Street for a reason. Because they are not just saying "Something is wrong with the economy". They are saying "These people are in part responsible for what's wrong with the economy. And efforts to fix the economy seem more aimed at helping a small percentage of moneyed interests then the actual citizens of this country".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And efforts to fix the economy seem more aimed at helping a small percentage of moneyed interests then the actual citizens of this country".

What are the efforts to fix the economy that are aimed more at a small percentage of moneyed interests, and what has been the cost of those efforts to taxpayers?

[The Progressive]

Lol, Reid and Obama wants to raise a surtax of 5% for income over 1million to fund the new job bill ............. this protest would only help that proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/obama-says-he-would-accept-a-surtax-on-high-incomes.html

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's a bunch of bullshit, jeff. "Everyone" doesn't know a freaking thing, which you keep harping on in saying that these protesters don't represent anyone.

Okay, what percentage of people do you think were unaware that our economy had problems until this protest?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What are the efforts to fix the economy that are aimed more at a small percentage of moneyed interests, and what has been the cost of those efforts to taxpayers?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ThinkMarkets/2010/1018/What-s-this-QE2-all-about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

[Shryke]

What are the efforts to fix the economy that are aimed more at a small percentage of moneyed interests, and what has been the cost of those efforts to taxpayers?

Compare Dow Jones or whatever vs the Unemployment Rate.

[Shryke]

Okay, what percentage of people do you think were unaware that our economy had problems until this protest?

It's a protest. It's an expression of discontent, not a campaign for awareness.

The point is to tell everyone "We're suffering to and we're also pissed off!".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Compare Dow Jones or whatever vs the Unemployment Rate.

That's not an "effort to fix the economy". Try again.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

http://www.rawstory....mergency-loans/

http://www.csmonitor...s-QE2-all-about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia....11;industrial_complex

http://upload.wikime...n_1947-2007.svg

The only two of those that actually identified a specific action with costs were the first and third. The first talks about loans made to banks. Do you know what the net cost of those loans were to taxpayers/the government? You know, were they repaid with interest, etc.

The other one was the Iraq War, and if you're going to argue that was an "effort to fix the economy that is aimed more at a small percentage of moneyed interests" -- which was the question posed, I don't think we have enough common ground to discuss that further given that the war started in 2003.

[Shryke]

That's not an "effort to fix the economy". Try again.

No, it's an indication fo the results of the various policies that have been implemented, which is more important.

It is the results that matter and it's the results that people notice.

[awesome possum]

What are the efforts to fix the economy that are aimed more at a small percentage of moneyed interests, and what has been the cost of those efforts to taxpayers?

How many multimillion and billion dollar corporations received bailouts in the last three years?

How many families with foreclosures or unemployed members received bailouts in the last three years? And no, unemployment benefits aren't a bailout, as unemployment only helps make sure a family doesn't sink instead of getting them out of the water completely.

Dude, this is one of those instances where you being intentionally obtuse isn't cute or funny. Unless it's not intentional, in which case I'm sorry for your loss of anything resembling common sense.

[Michael Jon Snow]

2. I'm all for an estate and gift tax. Someone acquires value without working for it - why shouldn't that be taxable to someone (I'd probably tax the recipient, but hey, that's just me)? And why is land a sacred cow? Seriously - you get value, you pay tax - sorry if there isn't enough cash, but I bet you could write a system where the liability is paid off over time, or something (e.g. for a working farm or a family company).

My biggest problem with this is that the person giving the gift, or the person who died, has already paid the taxes. While I agree there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse, I am opposed to taxing the distribution of wealth (within a family) that has already been taxed.

[lokisnow]

When it comes to inheritance, I'm all for taxing estates/wealth/assets/whatever valued at over a million dollars at 90%, because that's perfectly reasonable and leaves plenty of money for the heirs. An annual gift of over a million would also get hit by the tax, and that would let wealth transfer happen, they just couldn't give their heirs more than a million a year, so you probably wouldn't have anyone inheriting much more than 50 million over their lifetime. :)

[TerraPrime]

My biggest problem with this is that the person giving the gift, or the person who died, has already paid the taxes. While I agree there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse, I am opposed to taxing the distribution of wealth (within a family) that has already been taxed.

Not the double-taxing canard again.

We double, and triple-tax people all the time. You pay federal and state income tax, then when you buy something with that after-tax dollar, you are taxed again on sales tax or in some cases, sin tax.

[Shryke]

My biggest problem with this is that the person giving the gift, or the person who died, has already paid the taxes. While I agree there needs to be some protections to avoid abuse, I am opposed to taxing the distribution of wealth (within a family) that has already been taxed.

All wealth is taxed more then once. What's the issue?

[paddington]

Okay, what percentage of people do you think were unaware that our economy had problems until this protest?

I'd say no-one was unaware that there was a problem. However I think some people are just startiing to see the magnitude of the problem.

I suspect that a fair percentage of folks are going to have a very torrid time. Though the hores and pony show of today's poltics will continue. The rich will get richer, the poorer will be told their lazy, and the middle will get it's nuts squeezed.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

How many multimillion and billion dollar corporations received bailouts in the last three years?

I don't know -- it's your argument. I'm simply asking you to support it. Out of curiousity, I assume you're including all the auto company bailouts in there?

And for what it's worth, I've repeatedly said I don't like business bailouts and subsidies period.

How many families with foreclosures or unemployed members received bailouts in the last three years? And no, unemployment benefits aren't a bailout, as unemployment only helps make sure a family doesn't sink instead of getting them out of the water completely.

Well, in addition to the auto bailouts, we did have an $800B stimulus package that didn't go just to moneymakers on Wall Street. How people spent that money, whether to avoid foreclosure or not, I don't know. And there were a bunch of other programs aimed squarely at entities other than Wall Street. The problem is that they didn't work, not that we didn't spend the money.

Dude, this is one of those instances where you being intentionally obtuse isn't cute or funny.

Just because I don't parrot easy rhetoric doesn't make me obtuse. We have some extremely serious economic problems, some of which are due to problems on Wall Street. But the idea that we're in a shit sandwich because we gave all this money to Wall Street and none to the common people is just simplistic, populist bullshit.

It ducks the three core issues of 1) people living on credit and inflated wealth beyond their means, and that artificial wealth has collapsed; 2) a federal government also living well-beyond its means, with an increasing proportion of tax dollars going simply to service the debt, with prospects for the future looking significantly worse, and 3) a loss of competitiveness at home that has killed our ability to produce and sell goods internationally.

But those problems are simply too difficult and controversial to address, so we create a boogeyman whose death really wouldn't solve any of them, and in fact might make them worse.

This is an easy copout -- a distraction -- to avoid tough choices.