Occupy Wall Street

[mrlmd]

To help explain what this is all about.

http://front.moveon.org/the-occupywa...ith-olbermann/

[shiroganeshinobi]

Ahh good ole Olbermann. In a nutshell, he summaries an anti elitism message but no one believes their points. Hell, if I didn't know about those points already, I would be suspicious of their rhetoric.

Good link mrlmd

[sombo]

I think it's mostly the politicians, rich, and the brainwashed that don't believe them. More and more people not only believe them, but agree with them. Everyday I see another "Occupy (state's name here)" group pop up. The movement is rolling and gaining momentum.

[CynicalC]

In for later.

[Boom King]

Starting to catch on up here in Canada as well.

[CynicalC]

[sombo]

And yet there are so many people that think these people and those that agree with them are being stupid.

[almost40]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=R2yYiULZ0hA
you have to admit it is hard to take groups like this seriously.

and my favorite of the day....

Caution for launguage.

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/14/v...n-help-us-now/

This dude has smoked way way way to much pot and has an unparalleled way of powering future automobiles.

[CZroe]

I'm in stitches laughing at that "statement." Caricature of EVIL!

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by almost40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=R2yYiULZ0hA
you have to admit it is hard to take groups like this seriously.

Protesters are not allowed to use megaphones, so they have to take pauses while speaking so what they said can be repeated so everyone can hear. Also, this is Occupy SF.

Originally Posted by almost40

[url]http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/14/v...n-help-us-now/

This dude has smoked way way way to much pot and has an unparalleled way of powering future automobiles.

Nice website. Good to see you are "scouring the bowels of the internet." Yes that guy has obviously smoked way too much pot and is very emotional.

[kyrider]

This is what they all should be there for -

Link to original page on YouTube.

[sombo]

[almost40]

ok, so they should all be there for Ron Paul????

[almost40]

OMG the guy in my above link has been identified
Edward T. Hall III

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ether-briefly/

Mr. Hall said that he grew up in New Mexico and that both his parents were politically active lawyers who were thrilled that he was pursuing a socially conscious life and was involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest. Mr. Hall said he attended Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and then transferred to Bard College in upstate New York because of its reputation as a socially conscious school.

He had been renting in Washington Heights for the past two years while attending doctoral classes at Columbia University as a nonmatriculated student. He said that he supported his modest lifestyle with savings from working as a teenager and that he also had “a small trust fund” from his grandfather that he had not drawn from yet. For the past four weeks, he has eaten free meals and has slept in the park.

Isnt that the pot calling the kettel black??? A trust fund baby who is ditching class (if he attends any classes at all) to live in the park barefoot with the common folk and "strategize".

[CynicalC]

Common folk? Again, commenting without a clue.

[kyrider]

See more at http://the53.tumblr.com/

[almost40]

If she thinks she doesnt pay enough taxes she can always pay more.

Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Do ya think she will write out a check???

For those of you that feel you are undertaxed....please remit your "fair tax rate" that is above and beyond what you pay now to the above address.
Yeah that includes the likes of Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, and any other tool who thinks I should pay more or they dont pay enough.

[almost40]

Just as an aside here are the numbers that were paid in extra taxes. "gifts"


2010 -$2,840,466.75
2009 -3,063,057.05
2008 -2,189,358.89
2007 -2,624,862.42
2006 -1,646,209.41
2005 -1,455,541.65
2004 -664,911.25
2003 -1,277,423.40
2002 -744,675.06
2001 -1,645,082.28
2000 -1,868,891.93
1999 -1,457,510.59
1998 -1,535,541.02
1997 -955,897.15
1996 -1,985,175.10
A whopping 2.8 million last year.
Looks to me like everyone is pretty happy with the taxes they pay.
or at the very least they think they pay enough.

[almost40]

Great link kyrider.

[eddiekay]

Does anyone want to bet that...maybe in a week, maybe in a month but certainly before Nov 2012...we'll all find out that , if not our community organizer president, Big Barack, his camp is behind the demonstrations?
Barack wants to redistribute the wealth in this country and class warfare is one way to do it. If you agree with that goal...support the movement. If you dont, be absolutely sure you and your girlfriend and mom and dad and sister and brother and cousions, aunts and uncles and everybody you know simply vote republican in every and any election you can. I cant predict that a republican president, congress and house will do any better...but can it do any worse?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

but can it do any worse?

[sombo]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Does anyone want to bet that...maybe in a week, maybe in a month but certainly before Nov 2012...we'll all find out that , if not our community organizer president, Big Barack, his camp is behind the demonstrations?
Barack wants to redistribute the wealth in this country and class warfare is one way to do it. If you agree with that goal...support the movement. If you dont, be absolutely sure you and your girlfriend and mom and dad and sister and brother and cousions, aunts and uncles and everybody you know simply vote republican in every and any election you can. I cant predict that a republican president, congress and house will do any better...but can it do any worse?

So you want to vote in more people who want to take more of your rights away, take more of your money and give it to the rich, cut more from the social safety nets that are all that some people have right now, make more free trade agreements that will ship even more jobs overseas and not give a rats ass about you? Great plan.

Personally I don't like either side cause neither side really works for the people anymore. Instead they both work for the lobbyists who in turn work for the top 1% and could give a damn about how hard you work to scrape together some form of living as long as they get 1000x more than you for less work.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Well Ill give ya that GW wasnt the greatest.......But WORSE than the current occupant???
You have to be kidding me.

Yes he spent more than anyone before him

Then along came Obama who...... guess what......spent even more.

GW's average addition per year to the national debt $607 billion a year. During Obama's presidency to mid Jan of this year, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.6 trillion plus a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.1 trillion more, per year. None of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023)

Ill take GW back in a second......and I was no fan.


heres a poll on the subject
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149666/Ma...orse-Bush.aspx

[almost40]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Does anyone want to bet that...maybe in a week, maybe in a month but certainly before Nov 2012...we'll all find out that , if not our community organizer president, Big Barack, his camp is behind the demonstrations?

Ill bet against the above.

Class warfare has been with us long before the big O took office.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Well Ill give ya that GW wasnt the greatest.......But WORSE than the current occupant???
You have to be kidding me.

GW was one of the worst presidents in modern history, and his legacy will simply get worse as time goes on. A failure domestically, a failure internationally, a failure personally. The effects of his incompetence, pandering, and short-sightedness will be felt for more years than even his apologists would care to admit.

Originally Posted by almost40

GW's average addition per year to the national debt $607 billion a year. During Obama's presidency to mid Jan of this year, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.6 trillion plus a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.1 trillion more, per year.

Seeing as the policies put in place by GW took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficits in modern times, and are a direct cause of the continuing challenges of income vs. spending, this is a hard sell to anyone who looks under the covers. Not to mention, some questionable accounting about whether either of the wars were actually included in those deficit calculations up until 2008, makes direct comparisons even harder.

But since we're clearly trying to figure out who to point the finger at, try and reconcile this one data point with your view. This is Bruce Bartlett (adviser to Reagan, Treasury official under GHB) , speaking in Oct 2009.

Originally Posted by Bruce Bartlett

According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.

That's $1.186T, before Obama got an email account at whitehouse.gov. And most damningly:

Originally Posted by Bruce Bartlett

I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.

I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts.

(both quotes from here)

Originally Posted by almost40

heres a poll on the subject
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149666/Ma...orse-Bush.aspx

Did you actually read that poll? The first line is: "Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. "

And the headline adds together the same and the worse numbers, for a total of 56%, and then reinterprets that to mean that the majority feel that Bush was doing a better job. That's some top-notch Fox News-style math right there.

[eddiekay]

A lot goes into a person that makes them suited to lead and maybe the most has to do with how they are raised as children. Look into barack's bio while you're letting the oil drain out and you'll see that he was absolutely not raised by parents who took part in the AMERICAN lifestyle ( for better or worse). Our prez was not raised to share our values. Fast forward to his college years and the fact that, like many or most of us...he didnt have to work thru school because he went in on a race based quota. Move ahead further to his adult life as a community organizer who's purpose was not to empower but to shake down anybody who had more than the people whom he organized. I cannot find any account of anything he did that actually added to anybody's life but his own.
Simply, he did not share "American values".
But he was kind of quiet about that in his campaign...
Well...in office for 3 years now he's coming out in a big way. He will change our lives whether we like it or not...if we let him.
Look...back in '08 things seemed so bad that we tried anything we could and elected him. In '11...things are a lot worse and there's no end in sight.
Honest....how many of you were better off in '05,06.07 and 08 ?
Are you worse off money wise, job wise, taxes, are we better off in any respect than we were 4 or 5 years ago? This isnt rocket science...he's sinking our ship.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Simply, he did not share "American values".

Right. Because American values are about riding on your parent's coattails, getting into colleges you wouldn't qualify for academically due to family connections rather than affirmative action, trying to not let any drug activity or DUI's stick too long to your permanent record, and making sure that anything negative about your laughable military record stays buried.

Or is that not what you meant?

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Well...in office for 3 years now he's coming out in a big way. He will change our lives whether we like it or not...if we let him.

Or, he's finally realizing that attempting to work with or compromise in any fashion, with those who prioritize their own political gains over anything at all to do with actually helping the country has always been a bit naive.

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Look...back in '08 things seemed so bad that we tried anything we could and elected him. In '11...things are a lot worse and there's no end in sight.
Honest....how many of you were better off in '05,06.07 and 08 ?
Are you worse off money wise, job wise, taxes, are we better off in any respect than we were 4 or 5 years ago? This isnt rocket science...he's sinking our ship.

He's sinking our ship? Really? What policies that he's been able to accomplish are getting in the way of your success? The economy is in sorry shape, and has been for years. The way out of it is being co-opted by those who are taking advantage of the malaise to enrich themselves further.

[sombo]

Most of it comes not from him, but from the effects we are feeling from the previous administration. Also many of the bad decisions have been coming out of the Senate, not the oval office. Direct your anger where it belongs, at Congress who have been screwing us and making presidents into puppets and scapegoats for decades now.

[mrlmd]

Not so much the Senate, but the House. No, No, No, to everything that's been proposed that would be for the public good, even if it was a Republican idea to start with. The do nothing or be against everything Congress. Their whole objective (Boehner, Cantor, etc. etc.), is to be as obstructionist to anything and everything he proposes, no matter how bad the country is screwed, to make him look bad and get him out of office. In the Senate, McConnell said their main focus is to make him a one term president. No jobs bill or even discussion of it, no proposals of their own, but pass ridiculous bills about abortion and limiting women's health care and same sex marriage. Is that what the country cares about? No, but it appeals to their base, like they're really accomplishing something. They were all campaigning on creating jobs and were elected on it, but if jobs were to be created, like hiring more teachers, police, construction workers to fix all the rotten bridges and infrastructure about to collapse, that would look good for Obama, so the answer to the country is no.
That's part of what this movement is about, restoring reality to the political process, and it's not going to die so fast. It's been spreading all over the country, and to the rest of the world who is also fed up with what's going on.

[Linuss]

Do I agree with SOME things they are touting? Yes. But not most.


They don't speak for me. They aren't the 99%. They are 1% bitching about another 1%. The other 98% don't give a damn, not out of apathy, but because we understand that it really does not matter.

It's either communism/socialism, or what we have now. I choose what we have now.




I'm 23. I have half of a college education, due to my own choice. I have a decent paying career as a Paramedic. I have no debt, not because of someone else, but because my parents raised me with a sense of responsibility. I don't blame others for issues that happen to me when they aren't at fault. I vote with my money. If I don't like a business, I refuse to use it. I just left Bank of America due to their policies and joined USAA because I agree with theirs.



When does personal responsibility start?

[Lil_Green_Demon]

Thanks for sharing this video, Marc (OP). Definitely an eye opener. I'm so out of the loop these days that I didn't even know there was a new movement occurring. Time to make history, motherf*ckers!

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

GW was one of the worst presidents in modern history, and his legacy will simply get worse as time goes on. A failure domestically, a failure internationally, a failure personally. The effects of his incompetence, pandering, and short-sightedness will be felt for more years than even his apologists would care to admit.

That is until they write the book on Obama

Dont get me wrong Alex.....I think, you think, I am a fan of GW.... I am in no way a fan.

He spent like a liberal
He regulated like a liberal
and in his second term....was for all intensive purposes was a liberal.

Originally Posted by Alex

Seeing as the policies put in place by GW took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficits in modern times, and are a direct cause of the continuing challenges of income vs. spending, this is a hard sell to anyone who looks under the covers. Not to mention, some questionable accounting about whether either of the wars were actually included in those deficit calculations up until 2008, makes direct comparisons even harder.

But since we're clearly trying to figure out who to point the finger at, try and reconcile this one data point with your view. This is Bruce Bartlett (adviser to Reagan, Treasury official under GHB) , speaking in Oct 2009.

FYI the wars were included in the above calculations and as far as questionable accounting goes it was also brought up under clinton and the "so called" surplus. Heres just one example.
http://jrs2cents.com/bill-clinton-surplus-myth.html

I have called the Clinton surplus a surplus......but others have questioned the accounting in his administration just as you question the acounting in GW's

BTW if Im pointing fingers....Ill point at GW and Clinton but mostly GW. I dont have a problem with that. I do have a problem with saying hes worse than Obama. The data just does not back it up.

Originally Posted by Alex

That's $1.186T, before Obama got an email account at whitehouse.gov. And most damningly:



(both quotes from here)

And Obama spent more than that last year alone.
1.6 trillion plus.
Not counting obamacare.

8 years of GW got us 1.1 Trillion
2 years of Obama got us 3.2 + trillion

Originally Posted by Alex

Did you actually read that poll? The first line is: "Asked to compare Barack Obama with George W. Bush, Americans are more inclined to say Obama has been a better (43%) rather than a worse (34%) president, with 22% seeing no difference between the two. "

And the headline adds together the same and the worse numbers, for a total of 56%, and then reinterprets that to mean that the majority feel that Bush was doing a better job. That's some top-notch Fox News-style math right there.

Yeah I read the poll.....I posted it as an FYI not a link to my or your side.
I just thought it was relevant to the discussion.

But you left out an important line in the poll

Those who say Obama has been about the same as Bush generally view Obama negatively, with 27% approving and 62% disapproving of the way Obama is handling his job as president.

Thats where you get the 56%
34%+22% is 56%
Ignoring the above is some top-notch MSNBC/CNN style ignoring of the facts.

[CynicalC]

Another "common folk" occupier.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

And Obama spent more than that last year alone.
1.6 trillion plus.
Not counting obamacare.

8 years of GW got us 1.1 Trillion
2 years of Obama got us 3.2 + trillion

You're mixing up your numbers, going interchangeably from a yearly deficit, to an overall deficit, without realizing the difference. The point that I posted was that the expected 1 year deficit for 2009 as of when he took office, was $1.186T.

In other words, if he did absolutely nothing, the government was on track to run a $1.186T deficit that year, and continue going forward.

GW didn't get us $1.1T total. He took us from $5.8T to $11.9T (if you go from 9/30/2001 to 9/30/2009, assuming much of what happens those first 9 months are already baked), or from $5.67T to $10.0T (if you go instead from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2008, and assume it's close enough).

Your numbers need to be: GWB got us $6.1T (11.9T-5.8), or $4.3T (10.0T-5.67T). (deficit metrics)

The main point you're missing is everything was continued to be on track for well over $1T per year already. And anything of significance that has been spent (or agreed not to be collected), from the Bush tax cuts, to TARP, to the expected auto bailout, etc., are hard to separate from the policies that are already existing. Portraying Obama as a huge spender is a fallacy, done by people who either can't add or can't read. Portraying him as someone who has had a hard time accomplishing getting anything through Congress, well, now we're talking.

Originally Posted by almost40

But you left out an important line in the poll

Those who say Obama has been about the same as Bush generally view Obama negatively, with 27% approving and 62% disapproving of the way Obama is handling his job as president.

Thats where you get the 56%
34%+22% is 56%
Ignoring the above is some top-notch MSNBC/CNN style ignoring of the facts.

Really? So those who didn't like Bush, don't like Obama, and that's an indictment of Obama. Congratulations, that's quite an interpretation. I guess they're screwed. Bachman will save us. Wait, Ron Paul will.

[almost40]

I love how the liberals seem to gloss over the fact that they (being the democrats) controlled all 3 branches of government for the first 2 years of the current administration.
What exactly did they acomplish in those 2 years other than to give us Obamacare (If you dont know what that was your way out of the loop.)

Omnibus Appropriations Act (which was a massive spending bill which included 8,696 earmarks at a cost of $11 billion. The spending bill added $19 billion in new spending above the baseline – an 8.6% spending increase.)

The stimulus package failure (Which adds $821 billion in new spending according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Also the White House promises this infusion of spending and borrowing would keep unemployment rate below 8%. As millions of Americans are painfully aware, that promise was broken.)

They passed the FY 2010 budget which called for a $2 trillion debt increase in 2010, and another 8.9% increase in non-defense discretionary spending.

They didnt even pass a budget for FY 2011. Defying the 1974 budget act that requires a budget to be passed by April 15th

Not only didnt they not pass it...they didnt even propose one.

All this under a democrat controled house senate and president.

Back to the budget
800+ days later (since the last budget that was proposed) while trying to hash out the FY 2012 budget the Congress (republican controlled) and Obama agreed and passed a budget.

Which was voted down 97-0 in the senate (democrat controled)

Now somehow....... the republicans are the do nothing crew.
The power of the media. Besides the President keeps saying its all the republicans fault......Keep telling the same lie long enogh and there are those who believe it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Keep telling the same lie long enogh and there are those who believe it.

See: Irony.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

You're mixing up your numbers, going interchangeably from a yearly deficit, to an overall deficit, without realizing the difference. The point that I posted was that the expected 1 year deficit for 2009 as of when he took office, was $1.186T.

In other words, if he did absolutely nothing, the government was on track to run a $1.186T deficit that year, and continue going forward.

GW didn't get us $1.1T total. He took us from $5.8T to $11.9T (if you go from 9/30/2001 to 9/30/2009, assuming much of what happens those first 9 months are already baked), or from $5.67T to $10.0T (if you go instead from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2008, and assume it's close enough).

Your numbers need to be: GWB got us $6.1T (11.9T-5.8), or $4.3T (10.0T-5.67T). (deficit metrics)

I misread your statement and took that you did your research.
I didnt think it jived with what I posted before (But I have been wrong on occasion)
so that makes this accurate correct?

GW's average addition per year to the national debt $607 billion a year. During Obama's presidency to mid Jan of this year, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.6 trillion plus a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.1 trillion more, per year. None of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023)

Originally Posted by Alex

The main point you're missing is everything was continued to be on track for well over $1T per year already. And anything of significance that has been spent (or agreed not to be collected), from the Bush tax cuts, to TARP, to the expected auto bailout, etc., are hard to separate from the policies that are already existing. Portraying Obama as a huge spender is a fallacy, done by people who either can't add or can't read. Portraying him as someone who has had a hard time accomplishing getting anything through Congress, well, now we're talking.:

see my below post.

Originally Posted by Alex

Really? So those who didn't like Bush, don't like Obama, and that's an indictment of Obama. Congratulations, that's quite an interpretation. I guess they're screwed. Bachman will save us. Wait, Ron Paul will.

The point being that there were more question asked than just the one question. Have you ever been polled?
Gallop and there findings are cited by both parties as an accurate gauge of the american people. That isnt in dispute is it??
The congression poll numbers provided by gallop are cited often by the democrats as of late.

Good to see you havent lost your sense of humor.......$2 a gallon gas and a full military pull back and the return to the gold standard is the answer.

[eddiekay]

Nice exchnage going on here.
And...nobody's getting pissy !
Onlyyyy on Ninjette.org could this happen.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

See: Irony.

Please
show me a lie in any of the above.

Thats an accurate account of the democrats tenure while controlling all 3 branches of government.
Granted there were small things passed that are not or were not in dispute by either side.
Please point out anything i missed, that was in dispute.

Now Im off to watch the new walking dead episode.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Please
show me a lie in any of the above.

The big lie is one of omission. If you are stating that you don't realize why the republicans are portrayed accurately as the party of "No", you're either lying or terribly misinformed. They had proudly championed the cause of allowing absolutely nothing to pass, without what was once a 60 vote supermajority. No to tax reform. No to spending bills. No to agreeing to pay the government's existing debt. No to everything and anything that could possibly be construed as a win for either the Democrats in general, or Obama specifically. This goes back to 2008, and continues to this day.

(from a report on the 110th Congress, way back when)

The “block-and-blame” obstruction strategy is no secret. Republicans block meaningful legislation and blame Democrats for getting nothing done

and heck, good old Trent Lott himself:

The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail… and so far it's working for us

It was a terribly cynical strategy then, and continues to be one today. Help drive the car toward the brick wall, and then do everything possible to keep someone from steering it away or stepping on the brakes; and if it crashes blame the other guy. Oh, unless there is a politically beneficial but societally detrimental compromise to be made at gunpoint moments before impact. Ultimately, the strategy will fail. But there is quite a bit of collateral damage along the way.