Yep, paying sales tax with your welfare $ should count.
I guess I didn't see what you were saying because I mentioned specifically income tax and the poster responded to my post, so I'm pretty sure he was talking about income tax.
And the bottom line is still ... is it really difficult to see a majority of Americans being ok with more taxes on the top 1%...hell, the top 20%...maybe the top 40%? If you are just looking for a simple majority, it's pretty easy to see.
cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.
It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.
It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I think we are pretty much on the same page on some things...I agree the tax code does need revamped....tax loopholes need closed...
as for the budget thing...that's so subjective I really don't know how that can really happen...but I support that notion....
however, the credit card is due and it needs paid...I just don't think grandma, the disabled, and the poor are in the best position to help....
He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?
Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.
I think the point you missed is that people who aren't paying any federal income taxes are complaining that people who pay over 1/5 of their income to the federal government (and it's higher if they don't have deductions) aren't paying their fair share. Yes, people pay sales tax, state income tax, property tax, etc if they live in a state that has those taxes, but so do everyone else (and depending on the income tax laws of the state they live in, the people paying no federal tax may not be paying state income tax, either, even if their state has one).
I'm not in favor of a flat tax, but I do think it's a bit hypocritical to pay no federal income tax and complain that someone else's taxes aren't higher. How about we solve the problem another way: keep taxes where they are, cut the budget, and keep making cuts until it's balanced.
I don't think a balanced budget is subjective at all. It's a pretty cut-and-dried concept. It wasn't that long ago that the government actually had a balanced budget, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be expected every year. Yes, people will disagree about what expenses to cut and each side will say they have things that are dealbreakers if the other side tries to touch them, but in the end there needs to be compromise and the understanding that what's popular isn't always what's best for the country. What Congress and the President have to understand is that every cut will make someone angry regardless of how small it is. Here in NJ, there have been cuts to a ton of things in order to balance the budget. People voted for Chris Christie because he promised to do that and every time something gets cut there's an uproar, but we've got to take our medicine. There were even people upset when he vetoed a $420,000 tax credit for the producers of "Jersey Shore." If there was ever something I thought would receive unanimous support, that would be it but even that made some people mad. As mad as people get when things get cut, I'd still be willing to bet that Christie gets re-elected because this state is actually moving in a direction that doesn't involve more tax increases. When it's a bragging point that there hasn't been a tax increase for 2 consecutive years, it doesn't say much for how things were before.
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.
It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I think we are pretty much on the same page on some things...I agree the tax code does need revamped....tax loopholes need closed...
as for the budget thing...that's so subjective I really don't know how that can really happen...but I support that notion....
however, the credit card is due and it needs paid...I just don't think grandma, the disabled, and the poor are in the best position to help....
When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.
It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.
The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.
Does the US Department of Transportation not pay for any roads? Does the Department of Education do nothing for our schools or help people afford college? Do states not receive funding from the Department of Homeland Security to assist with state and local law enforcement?
When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.
It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.
The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.
Inmytree...do you ask for clarification about payroll taxes when everyone and their mother claims GE pays no tax? Because they paid payroll taxes...
I have never seen anyone do that...You had to know I was referring to income tax, and if you didn't you weren't following too closely. I suppose you could have asked for clarification instead of assuming I was an idiot who doesn't understand that people pay state and local taxes. i live in minnesota, I understand better than most that people pay state and local taxes... AND THEN assuming that I wanted to "squeeze blood from a turnip"... But I suppose when we are discussing a group protesting corporate involvement in government, namely the federal government on a national stage, I should have clarified and also qualified every statement made in relation to all the states that all the people who might support them might be from...
the point of what I tried to add to the discussion was to say...not only will the support fade as it gets taken over, considering 40% of the people in this country supported the tea party at the beginning back in 2009, but also that yes it makes sense, considering that 47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes it would lend to the belief that roughly half of the country would be in strong support of a group of people who are seen as taking on the richest 1% of the population and would like to see INCOME TAX RATES raised on those people...Considering the writer of the article needed to make comments about how we "don't live in a tea party nation after all" don't you think it is a valid point?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?
Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.
you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"
He didn't...
right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...
It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.
doesn't that make sense?
since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....
He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?
Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.
you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"
He didn't...
right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...
It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.
doesn't that make sense?
since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....
reply to my post above please
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
OK, his post didn't specify income taxes, but the figure about 47% not paying income tax had been raised a few posts above him, so it's pretty obvious what he was referring to, which is why I didn't go back to the first page to make certain is was his post that said income tax instead of another post. If you want to split haris, fine, but I don't see how anyone would have been reading this thread and thought he meant anything other than federal income tax since that's what's being discussed.
Now that I've admitted my error, maybe you can find it in your heart to go back and read the rest of what I wrote?
He said "income tax" in his post, not that they don't pay any tax at all. Nobody would assume he meant that there are people going around getting waivers for sales tax when they go to the store. How would the cashier know who has to pay and who doesn't? What about the self-checkeout at Home Depot? How would that work? We all pay sales tax, property tax, etc. if those taxes apply in our state. This discussion has focused on the federal government, so when he says "no income tax" it is safe to assume it means "federal income tax." It seems like you want to pick apart the omission of the word "federal" that doesn't change the meaning of what was written and somehow twist it to mean that he said they don't pay sales tax or other taxes rather than address the actual point. About 47% of people who file tax returns didn't pay any federal income tax. Not a single dollar. Yet those same people are complaining that other people aren't paying "their fair share." Well, what do you consider to be their fair share? 40%? 50%?
Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.
you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"
He didn't...
right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...
It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.
doesn't that make sense?
since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....
Inmytree...do you ask for clarification about payroll taxes when everyone and their mother claims GE pays no tax? Because they paid payroll taxes...
I have never seen anyone do that...You had to know I was referring to income tax, and if you didn't you weren't following too closely. I suppose you could have asked for clarification instead of assuming I was an idiot who doesn't understand that people pay state and local taxes. i live in minnesota, I understand better than most that people pay state and local taxes... AND THEN assuming that I wanted to "squeeze blood from a turnip"... But I suppose when we are discussing a group protesting corporate involvement in government, namely the federal government on a national stage, I should have clarified and also qualified every statement made in relation to all the states that all the people who might support them might be from...
the point of what I tried to add to the discussion was to say...not only will the support fade as it gets taken over, considering 40% of the people in this country supported the tea party at the beginning back in 2009, but also that yes it makes sense, considering that 47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes it would lend to the belief that roughly half of the country would be in strong support of a group of people who are seen as taking on the richest 1% of the population and would like to see INCOME TAX RATES raised on those people...Considering the writer of the article needed to make comments about how we "don't live in a tea party nation after all" don't you think it is a valid point?
relax, Mike....no need to get upset...
I've stated why I responded as I did...in case you missed it, here it is again:
cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...
I got it!!!!! I propose a 50% tax on corporate bonuses and the year end average value of stock options. All of that money is marked to pay down the debt. No other use is permissable.
In addition to this . ALL Federal employess who are elected to their positon should pay for their own fucking health care and there will no longer be pensions for these people either.
All nominated cabinet members should pay thier own HC as well. DO they currently get a federal pension? id so thats gone too.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
OK, his post didn't specify income taxes, but the figure about 47% not paying income tax had been raised a few posts above him, so it's pretty obvious what he was referring to, which is why I didn't go back to the first page to make certain is was his post that said income tax instead of another post. If you want to split haris, fine, but I don't see how anyone would have been reading this thread and thought he meant anything other than federal income tax since that's what's being discussed.
Now that I've admitted my error, maybe you can find it in your heart to go back and read the rest of what I wrote?
no worries, my friend...I did go back and read it...I really don't agree with you stance...I hope that's ok...
I really don't understand the need to worry about the wealthy paying an extra 3% in taxes + the desire to make the elderly, disabled and poor pay more...
call me kooky but I have a hard time reconciling that....
Inmytree...do you ask for clarification about payroll taxes when everyone and their mother claims GE pays no tax? Because they paid payroll taxes...
I have never seen anyone do that...You had to know I was referring to income tax, and if you didn't you weren't following too closely. I suppose you could have asked for clarification instead of assuming I was an idiot who doesn't understand that people pay state and local taxes. i live in minnesota, I understand better than most that people pay state and local taxes... AND THEN assuming that I wanted to "squeeze blood from a turnip"... But I suppose when we are discussing a group protesting corporate involvement in government, namely the federal government on a national stage, I should have clarified and also qualified every statement made in relation to all the states that all the people who might support them might be from...
the point of what I tried to add to the discussion was to say...not only will the support fade as it gets taken over, considering 40% of the people in this country supported the tea party at the beginning back in 2009, but also that yes it makes sense, considering that 47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes it would lend to the belief that roughly half of the country would be in strong support of a group of people who are seen as taking on the richest 1% of the population and would like to see INCOME TAX RATES raised on those people...Considering the writer of the article needed to make comments about how we "don't live in a tea party nation after all" don't you think it is a valid point?
relax, Mike....no need to get upset...
I've stated why I responded as I did...in case you missed it, here it is again:
cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...
take care...
sorry man, I get rankled when my posts get misinterpreted when I feel they are pretty clear, it automatically makes me think the larger points being made are simply being ignored. So sorry for jumping on you.
It still seems that you haven't responded to the initial point being made...don't you think it makes sense a group that among other things wants income taxes raised on the rich would be viewed favorably by 50 % of the people when 50% of the people don't pay federal income taxes...
and I still see corporate profit taxes as a talking point, but none bring up payroll, state, and local taxes when discussing that...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
OK, his post didn't specify income taxes, but the figure about 47% not paying income tax had been raised a few posts above him, so it's pretty obvious what he was referring to, which is why I didn't go back to the first page to make certain is was his post that said income tax instead of another post. If you want to split haris, fine, but I don't see how anyone would have been reading this thread and thought he meant anything other than federal income tax since that's what's being discussed.
Now that I've admitted my error, maybe you can find it in your heart to go back and read the rest of what I wrote?
no worries, my friend...I did go back and read it...I really don't agree with you stance...I hope that's ok...
I really don't understand the need to worry about the wealthy paying an extra 3% in taxes + the desire to make the elderly, disabled and poor pay more...
call me kooky but I have a hard time reconciling that....
When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.
It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.
The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.
Love the attitude, especially when you are wrong.
Maybe you should look into federal aid and grants given and what they are given for, which I hope you can figure out how to do.
When almost 50% of people don't pay any income tax and still like having roads, schools, military, police force, welfare, etc.... it's not hard to see why they would support OWS.
It's tougher to force the government to look closely at it's spending than it is to look at who has money and make them give more to the goverment.
The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.
Love the attitude, especially when you are wrong.
Maybe you should look into federal aid and grants given and what they are given for, which I hope you can figure out how to do.
And what percentage of the costs of the services you listed are from federal grants?
When you said "50% of people don't pay any income tax", that would be wrong on your part. You know it's federal income tax.
What's funny is the same people that would pull out single examples from the tea party protests and say they represented the whole group and now telling everyone to ignore the idiots at the OWS because they don't apply to the whole group.
And the same people that said the idiots at the tea party rallies didn't represent the whole group are now pulling out single examples of idiots at the OWS and saying they represent the whole group.
This is good stuff.
I think it's fair to say there are a bunch of idiots at both and that they do not represent the whole group. I would venture to guess that most of the tea partiers can spell "our" and most of the OWS aren't just there to get someone to pay their student loans. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
With the Occupy Wall Street protests gaining steam in the U.S., it seems obvious to link it with the other grassroots movement that recently shook up American politics — the Tea Party. My colleagues' pieces number among a flurry of others pondering the parallel. Michael Scherer recast Occupy Wall Street as the Tea Party of the American left. Roya Wolverson suggested how the two movements, coming from diametrically-opposed sides of the political spectrum, could find common ground (and perhaps actual policy influence) in their mutual distaste for a Washington dominated by the vested interests of corporations. But while the similarities are noteworthy, they obscure more relevant truths about Occupy Wall Street, the supposedly inchoate movement that has transfixed the American media in recent weeks. I enumerate these truths after the jump.
1. Occupy Wall Street is an expression of a global phenomenon. A cursory glimpse at newspapers over the weekend would have shown scenes of mass protest across European capitals and cities elsewhere in the world, all in solidarity with the anti-greed protesters in New York. The Tea Party, for all its early brio, commands no such solidarity, nor does it care for it. It's a hyper-nationalist movement in the U.S., lofting the totems of the Constitution and the flag. Few viable political factions across the Atlantic advocate the Tea Party's anti-big government, libertarian agenda (though the xenophobic, culturally-conservative wing of the Tea Party would perhaps see eye to eye with Europe's Islamophobic far-right).
Many of the Occupy Wall Street's participants, on the other hand, consciously see themselves as part of a worldwide uprising, a flame first kindled by the Arab Spring and borne across the Mediterranean by anti-austerity protesters in Europe. In all three settings, social media has played a vital role in mobilizing and organizing the disaffected and the disenfranchised. In all three settings, activists and protesters have drawn to varying degrees from a toolbox of leftist, anarchist protest tactics and made do with minimal institutional support or funds. And in all three settings, the protesters have pulled together sympathizers from across myriad political camps within their countries and somehow made a virtue out of their movement's lack of central leadership. The U.S. economy may not be facing the same existential pressures as those of Greece or Spain, nor are American protesters facing the sort of desperate brutality meted out on brave dissidents in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria. But the call for social justice echoes the same across continents.
2. Occupy Wall Street is fueled by youth. Reporters covering the ongoing occupation of Zuccotti Park have encountered and profiled a host of characters from all walks and stages of life. One of my favorite interviews so far has been Marsha Spencer, a 56-year-old grandmother who can be found on weekends at the Park's western edge, knitting gloves and scarves for fellow protesters. She makes no bones about what's driving Occupy Wall Street — young people: college students saddled with years of debt, 20-somethings struggling to land a job, and an entire generation banging its head on what seems to be the ever-lowering ceiling of their possibilities. "It's all about them," Spencer told me on a rainy morning last week in Zuccotti Park.
Not true for the Tea Party, whose typical supporter is older, wealthier, and whiter than the American demographic average. It is a movement, by and large, of the haves — not the have nots. "It's essentially reactionary," says David Graeber, a professor of anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, who helped set up Occupy Wall Street's much-heralded General Assembly and is one of the first people to push the movement's now ubiquitous slogan 'We are the 99%'. "The Tea Party core group is white middle-class Republicans who are angry that they seem to be losing their position of preeminence in society." The ranks of Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, are most heavily populated by young people, who, says Graeber, "are supposed to be the ones at the forefront, re-imagining their society." Their protest fits into a long continuum of student and youth rebellions, most recently seen in the Mediterranean rim countries mentioned above.
3. Occupy Wall Street may prove much harder to co-opt into the political mainstream. Many have speculated what direction Occupy Wall Street will turn as it picks up momentum and encroaches on the U.S. 2012 Presidential campaign. Will the protest get co-opted by the country's big unions? Will D.C.-based advocacy groups like MoveOn.org try to exploit for its own ends the success of motley, diverse bands of protesters occupying dozens of downtowns across the U.S.? And, most importantly, will Occupy Wall Street radicalize the Democratic base the way the Tea Party energized the far-right of the Republicans?
At present, it's hard to see how Occupy Wall Street can generate the left-wing, Democratic versions of Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann. Few of the protesters one speaks to have any tolerance for either political party, which they say are both equally enmeshed in a political system entirely beholden to vested corporate interests. The Tea Party, boosted by financial titans and one of the U.S.'s most influential cable news network, was able to make the leap from grassroots anger to effective Beltway politicking. Occupy Wall Street has no such benefactors nor mouthpiece, and will have to undergo a massive — and potentially divisive — transformation should it become the sort of tempered, streamlined (what many would deem 'compromised') political player that can actually throw its weight behind the Obama Administration. For the time being, it remains a social movement far more interested in the sort of "direct democracy" practiced during occupations than that which gets negotiated in the corridors of power in D.C. The sentiments below may have been expressed by an exasperated Greek blogger in June, but they reverberate around Zuccotti Park today:
We will not suffer any more so that we can make the rich, even richer. We do not authorise any of the politicians, who failed so spectacularly, to borrow any more money in our name. We do not trust you or the people that are lending it. We want a completely new set of accountable people at the helm, untainted by the fiascos of the past. You have run out of ideas.
4. Occupy Wall Street still believes in politics and government. And this is where another important line has to be drawn. Whereas much of the Tea Party's programmatic ire seems directed at the very idea of government — and trumpets instead the virtue of self-reliance and the inexorable righteousness of the free market — Occupy Wall Street more sharply decries the collusion of corporate and political elites in Washington. The answer, for many of the protesters I've spoken with, is never the wholesale dismantling or whittling away of the capabilities of political institutions (except, perhaps, the Fed), but a subtler disentangling of Wall Street from Washington. Government writ large is not the problem, just the current sort of government.
Because, at the end of the day, Occupy Wall Street, like most idealistic social movements, wants real political solutions. Excited activists in Zuccotti Park spoke to me about the advent of "participatory budgeting" in a number of City Council districts in New York — an egalitarian system, first brought about in leftist-run cities in Latin America, that allows communities to dole out funds in their neighborhoods through deliberation and consensus-building. It's the same process that gets played out every day by the activist general assemblies held in Zuccotti Park and other occupation sites around the U.S. To the outside observer, that may seem foolishly utopian — and impracticable on a larger scale — but it's a sign of the deep political commitments of many of the motley protesters gathering under Occupy Wall Street's banner. They want to fix government, not escape from it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Only difference is that TP members will demand change while voting for Republicans (who'll fuck them over), whilst OWS members will demand change while voting for Democrats (who'll fuck them over). Boy, what a plan!
With the Occupy Wall Street protests gaining steam in the U.S., it seems obvious to link it with the other grassroots movement that recently shook up American politics — the Tea Party. My colleagues' pieces number among a flurry of others pondering the parallel. Michael Scherer recast Occupy Wall Street as the Tea Party of the American left. Roya Wolverson suggested how the two movements, coming from diametrically-opposed sides of the political spectrum, could find common ground (and perhaps actual policy influence) in their mutual distaste for a Washington dominated by the vested interests of corporations. But while the similarities are noteworthy, they obscure more relevant truths about Occupy Wall Street, the supposedly inchoate movement that has transfixed the American media in recent weeks. I enumerate these truths after the jump.
1. Occupy Wall Street is an expression of a global phenomenon. A cursory glimpse at newspapers over the weekend would have shown scenes of mass protest across European capitals and cities elsewhere in the world, all in solidarity with the anti-greed protesters in New York. The Tea Party, for all its early brio, commands no such solidarity, nor does it care for it. It's a hyper-nationalist movement in the U.S., lofting the totems of the Constitution and the flag. Few viable political factions across the Atlantic advocate the Tea Party's anti-big government, libertarian agenda (though the xenophobic, culturally-conservative wing of the Tea Party would perhaps see eye to eye with Europe's Islamophobic far-right).
Many of the Occupy Wall Street's participants, on the other hand, consciously see themselves as part of a worldwide uprising, a flame first kindled by the Arab Spring and borne across the Mediterranean by anti-austerity protesters in Europe. In all three settings, social media has played a vital role in mobilizing and organizing the disaffected and the disenfranchised. In all three settings, activists and protesters have drawn to varying degrees from a toolbox of leftist, anarchist protest tactics and made do with minimal institutional support or funds. And in all three settings, the protesters have pulled together sympathizers from across myriad political camps within their countries and somehow made a virtue out of their movement's lack of central leadership. The U.S. economy may not be facing the same existential pressures as those of Greece or Spain, nor are American protesters facing the sort of desperate brutality meted out on brave dissidents in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria. But the call for social justice echoes the same across continents.
2. Occupy Wall Street is fueled by youth. Reporters covering the ongoing occupation of Zuccotti Park have encountered and profiled a host of characters from all walks and stages of life. One of my favorite interviews so far has been Marsha Spencer, a 56-year-old grandmother who can be found on weekends at the Park's western edge, knitting gloves and scarves for fellow protesters. She makes no bones about what's driving Occupy Wall Street — young people: college students saddled with years of debt, 20-somethings struggling to land a job, and an entire generation banging its head on what seems to be the ever-lowering ceiling of their possibilities. "It's all about them," Spencer told me on a rainy morning last week in Zuccotti Park.
Not true for the Tea Party, whose typical supporter is older, wealthier, and whiter than the American demographic average. It is a movement, by and large, of the haves — not the have nots. "It's essentially reactionary," says David Graeber, a professor of anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, who helped set up Occupy Wall Street's much-heralded General Assembly and is one of the first people to push the movement's now ubiquitous slogan 'We are the 99%'. "The Tea Party core group is white middle-class Republicans who are angry that they seem to be losing their position of preeminence in society." The ranks of Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, are most heavily populated by young people, who, says Graeber, "are supposed to be the ones at the forefront, re-imagining their society." Their protest fits into a long continuum of student and youth rebellions, most recently seen in the Mediterranean rim countries mentioned above.
3. Occupy Wall Street may prove much harder to co-opt into the political mainstream. Many have speculated what direction Occupy Wall Street will turn as it picks up momentum and encroaches on the U.S. 2012 Presidential campaign. Will the protest get co-opted by the country's big unions? Will D.C.-based advocacy groups like MoveOn.org try to exploit for its own ends the success of motley, diverse bands of protesters occupying dozens of downtowns across the U.S.? And, most importantly, will Occupy Wall Street radicalize the Democratic base the way the Tea Party energized the far-right of the Republicans?
At present, it's hard to see how Occupy Wall Street can generate the left-wing, Democratic versions of Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann. Few of the protesters one speaks to have any tolerance for either political party, which they say are both equally enmeshed in a political system entirely beholden to vested corporate interests. The Tea Party, boosted by financial titans and one of the U.S.'s most influential cable news network, was able to make the leap from grassroots anger to effective Beltway politicking. Occupy Wall Street has no such benefactors nor mouthpiece, and will have to undergo a massive — and potentially divisive — transformation should it become the sort of tempered, streamlined (what many would deem 'compromised') political player that can actually throw its weight behind the Obama Administration. For the time being, it remains a social movement far more interested in the sort of "direct democracy" practiced during occupations than that which gets negotiated in the corridors of power in D.C. The sentiments below may have been expressed by an exasperated Greek blogger in June, but they reverberate around Zuccotti Park today:
We will not suffer any more so that we can make the rich, even richer. We do not authorise any of the politicians, who failed so spectacularly, to borrow any more money in our name. We do not trust you or the people that are lending it. We want a completely new set of accountable people at the helm, untainted by the fiascos of the past. You have run out of ideas.
4. Occupy Wall Street still believes in politics and government. And this is where another important line has to be drawn. Whereas much of the Tea Party's programmatic ire seems directed at the very idea of government — and trumpets instead the virtue of self-reliance and the inexorable righteousness of the free market — Occupy Wall Street more sharply decries the collusion of corporate and political elites in Washington. The answer, for many of the protesters I've spoken with, is never the wholesale dismantling or whittling away of the capabilities of political institutions (except, perhaps, the Fed), but a subtler disentangling of Wall Street from Washington. Government writ large is not the problem, just the current sort of government.
Because, at the end of the day, Occupy Wall Street, like most idealistic social movements, wants real political solutions. Excited activists in Zuccotti Park spoke to me about the advent of "participatory budgeting" in a number of City Council districts in New York — an egalitarian system, first brought about in leftist-run cities in Latin America, that allows communities to dole out funds in their neighborhoods through deliberation and consensus-building. It's the same process that gets played out every day by the activist general assemblies held in Zuccotti Park and other occupation sites around the U.S. To the outside observer, that may seem foolishly utopian — and impracticable on a larger scale — but it's a sign of the deep political commitments of many of the motley protesters gathering under Occupy Wall Street's banner. They want to fix government, not escape from it.
again, why put so much effort into making them different?. I get it, after years of calling the tea party people crazy, most on the left actually think they are so to be compared to them is the worst thing in the world in their eyes...Essentially both want the government to quit being in the favor business...
The only difference I see is that one believes that the government is part of the problem and should be shrunk, and one believes that government is part of the problem but can also somehow be the solution. Too bad, they could be one hell of a movement if they joined forces. The organization of the tea party and the youthful energy and excitement of the OWS could really be a force for political reform. Sort of like how Gi Joe and Cobra joined forces...don't have to be buddies all the time, but can certainly change the system for the good of both.
But keep letting them tell you how noble one is and how evil the other is...makes it easier
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think it's fair to say there are a bunch of idiots at both and that they do not represent the whole group. I would venture to guess that most of the tea partiers can spell "our" and most of the OWS aren't just there to get someone to pay their student loans. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
how can they afford student loans when they cant get hired bc some greedy CEO needs his outrageous bonus to come in every year bc of his awesome job of cutting jobs, increasing workloads on current employees and outsourcing?
I think it's fair to say there are a bunch of idiots at both and that they do not represent the whole group. I would venture to guess that most of the tea partiers can spell "our" and most of the OWS aren't just there to get someone to pay their student loans. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
how can they afford student loans when they cant get hired bc some greedy CEO needs his outrageous bonus to come in every year bc of his awesome job of cutting jobs, increasing workloads on current employees and outsourcing?
can't get hired or cannot find a job in their field? I realize that no one wants to dig ditches, but you have to start somewhere...college education or not, you need to work to pay your bills. Work isn't a right, it is a privilege. No one is guaranteed to get a job out of college, and no one is guaranteed to keep one.
What happened to simply shoveling shit in this country? i was face down in it for a few years and now I am where I want to be...no one promised me anything and no one felt sorry for me when I was struggling.
Just a bit of unsolicited advice to people complaining about their student loan debt or lot in life...i used to blame everyone else for my problems, and when I couldn't find a person or a reason, I simply blamed the universe...but a strange thing happened when I started to own my problems like unemployment, debt up to my eyeballs, not having a place I could call home... I fixed them....As soon as I looked at my problems as my fault, I was able to change my behavior and now own a house, have a family, and a pretty damn good job that I worked my ass off to get. Nothing worth having will ever be given to anyone who doesn't go out there and try to take it...
You may not always have control of your choices, but you always get to make decisions.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
again, why put so much effort into making them different?. I get it, after years of calling the tea party people crazy, most on the left actually think they are so to be compared to them is the worst thing in the world in their eyes...Essentially both want the government to quit being in the favor business...
The only difference I see is that one believes that the government is part of the problem and should be shrunk, and one believes that government is part of the problem but can also somehow be the solution. Too bad, they could be one hell of a movement if they joined forces. The organization of the tea party and the youthful energy and excitement of the OWS could really be a force for political reform. Sort of like how Gi Joe and Cobra joined forces...don't have to be buddies all the time, but can certainly change the system for the good of both.
But keep letting them tell you how noble one is and how evil the other is...makes it easier
it is completely different interests at stake here. one group wants people to be taken care of while the other does not. one group feels that government is the entire problem while the other feels that that government should be used to benefit all people. one group feels that occupying the financial districts is a way to make a change, while the other side scoffs at them and tells them to "quit whining, suck it up, and it is your own fault you are in the situation that you are in..." one group feels that corporations are the problem while one sees no big issue with the corporations, and even agree that corporations are people and cash is speech...these are serious issues to overcome, and at this point i don't see any way that the two can get past those differences to become whatever cohesive unit that people imagine there can be...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Well, I guess my new identity will be that of a "racist redneck who reeks of petrulli oil".
Obama: Occupy Wall Street 'Not That Different' From Tea Party Protests
President Obama, who has become a target of the Occupy Wall Street protests sweeping the country, today embraced the economic frustration being given voice on the streets and said that his vision for America’s economic system is best suited to resolve protesters’ concerns.
“I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests,” Obama told ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper in an exclusive interview from Jamestown, N.C.
“In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party. Both on the left and the right, I think people feel separated from their government. They feel that their institutions aren’t looking out for them,” he said.
.....
again, why put so much effort into making them different?. I get it, after years of calling the tea party people crazy, most on the left actually think they are so to be compared to them is the worst thing in the world in their eyes...Essentially both want the government to quit being in the favor business...
The only difference I see is that one believes that the government is part of the problem and should be shrunk, and one believes that government is part of the problem but can also somehow be the solution. Too bad, they could be one hell of a movement if they joined forces. The organization of the tea party and the youthful energy and excitement of the OWS could really be a force for political reform. Sort of like how Gi Joe and Cobra joined forces...don't have to be buddies all the time, but can certainly change the system for the good of both.
But keep letting them tell you how noble one is and how evil the other is...makes it easier
it is completely different interests at stake here. one group wants people to be taken care of while the other does not. one group feels that government is the entire problem while the other feels that that government should be used to benefit all people. one group feels that occupying the financial districts is a way to make a change, while the other side scoffs at them and tells them to "quit whining, suck it up, and it is your own fault you are in the situation that you are in..." one group feels that corporations are the problem while one sees no big issue with the corporations, and even agree that corporations are people and cash is speech...these are serious issues to overcome, and at this point i don't see any way that the two can get past those differences to become whatever cohesive unit that people imagine there can be...
"Eighty-five percent of the Democrats polled were opposed to the ruling, while 76% percent of Republicans and 81% of independents also said they were opposed. The nearly unanimous opposition crosses more than just party lines."
Both want government reform so that the government is no longer in the favor doing business. No bailouts, businesses should rise and fall on their own. You see, that isn't that different. So if you can reform politics to remove special interests, crony capitalism...I think both sides can agree that would make things better.
After reforming the entire political system, and mainly the corporate influence on the , then they can get back to disagreeing about where money and how much of it should be spent...they can get back to disagreeing about the role of the federal government...but that doesn't mean they disagree about getting rid of government sponsored crony capitalism.
So both see, at least should see, the current government system as the enemy...and as you know...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But for all the conspiracy theorists I see on here about where the media drives wedges and all that to keep us all divided...why are they not seeing it here?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...
Actually, I don't believe anyone should pay more taxes until the prove they will use it wisely and stick to a budget.
It's convenient to spend your way into a big mess and then come out and say..."well, we are in too big a mess now to just do it with spending, so let's raise some taxes too". The problem is, it could be true. I think the whole tax code needs reworked not just upping the % on some people. Obama's plan will end up hitting the upper-middle class the hardest in my opinion, which is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I think we are pretty much on the same page on some things...I agree the tax code does need revamped....tax loopholes need closed...
as for the budget thing...that's so subjective I really don't know how that can really happen...but I support that notion....
however, the credit card is due and it needs paid...I just don't think grandma, the disabled, and the poor are in the best position to help....
Let's say the government raises taxes on the wealthy. Do you think any of that extra tax money will wind up making its way to everyone else? No, that will go towards bullshit. The rest of us won't be getting an extra check from the government with that money. Our taxes won't be lowered. Our employers won't magically be able to give us better raises. What might happen, though, is the people taking on the extra tax burden will decide to offset the decrease in their take-home pay by not buying some of the luxury items they want (like a new car or boat) or they won't decide to remodel a room in their house that they were thinking about changing. Now, some people might read this and think, "Who gives a carp? They don't need those things." True, they don't. BUT, their purchases of those items and their hiring of contractors to do work directly impact the economy in their area. If they don't buy that car or boat, there's a salesperson missing out on that commission. And if it's a boat, there's a marina missing out on the income from the storage of that boat, the winterizing of the boat, etc. If they don't remodel a room, there's a contractor not getting a job and workers not getting paid. I've seen these things first hand. My girlfriend's cousin works at a marina and this winter will be the 2nd in a row that he'll be laid off. He's worked for his employer for years and was never laid off before, but now their customers are cutting back and keeping their boats at their homes for the winter rather than paying the marina to take care of it. Their boat sales have dropped to almost nothing and they may decide to not sell them anymore. I know contractors who used to be very busy doing jobs in large homes who have seen that work dry up in spite of doing quality work and customers having told them that they were going to have more work for them in other areas of their homes or the jobs requested are suddenly much smaller than originally mentioned. Now, they say that they are holding off on that work to save money because of the economy. The only time a large job comes through is when it's something that needs immediate attention. Raise their taxes and watch what happens to the work they want done on their homes. In an uncertain economy, people are going to save for their future regardless of how much they make because they don't want to risk not being able to pay their mortgages or property taxes and lose their homes. If they have a goal of saving $X and their take-home pay is lowered by taxes, their percentage of disposable income goes down. Sure, they "suffer" by not having some things they want, but others suffer by not getting the income they need and that has a ripple effect on everyone.
The 47% is in reference to people not paying federal income tax. You should probably learn more about where federal income tax money goes vs. where local and state taxes go (schools, roads, police etc). Many of the 47% are still paying local and state tax, which I hope you could figure out.
I have never seen anyone do that...You had to know I was referring to income tax, and if you didn't you weren't following too closely. I suppose you could have asked for clarification instead of assuming I was an idiot who doesn't understand that people pay state and local taxes. i live in minnesota, I understand better than most that people pay state and local taxes... AND THEN assuming that I wanted to "squeeze blood from a turnip"... But I suppose when we are discussing a group protesting corporate involvement in government, namely the federal government on a national stage, I should have clarified and also qualified every statement made in relation to all the states that all the people who might support them might be from...
the point of what I tried to add to the discussion was to say...not only will the support fade as it gets taken over, considering 40% of the people in this country supported the tea party at the beginning back in 2009, but also that yes it makes sense, considering that 47% of people don't pay INCOME taxes it would lend to the belief that roughly half of the country would be in strong support of a group of people who are seen as taking on the richest 1% of the population and would like to see INCOME TAX RATES raised on those people...Considering the writer of the article needed to make comments about how we "don't live in a tea party nation after all" don't you think it is a valid point?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you say: "He said "income tax" in his post"
He didn't...
right, but if you are poor, and pay no taxes at all and are asked a question about a group that is perceived to be taking on the evil 1%...wouldn't it also make sense that they would support that movement.... So if half don't pay taxes and about half are supportive of the movement...
It isn't about the right or wrong of the tax code, it was more about establishing direct correlation between the amount of people who don't pay taxes and the amount of people who are supportive of the OWS movement.
doesn't that make sense?
since you can't get facts straight I didn't read the remainder if your post....
reply to my post above please
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Now that I've admitted my error, maybe you can find it in your heart to go back and read the rest of what I wrote?
relax, Mike....no need to get upset...
I've stated why I responded as I did...in case you missed it, here it is again:
cincy, my point is this: folks have bought into this claim that "47% of folks pay no taxes"...it's turned into a talking point that is completely wrong...I know you think federal income tax was implied...I simply saw the statement as someone repeating a false talking point....
I understand you don't feel the wealthy should pay more in taxes....I do...in fact, I'd be ok with paying a little more taxes myself.....
fact of business something needs done...cutting everything is not going to help the situation...right now we are paying the bills rung up during the 2000's...I know that's hard for folks to understand...and to accept...
take care...
In addition to this . ALL Federal employess who are elected to their positon should pay for their own fucking health care and there will no longer be pensions for these people either.
All nominated cabinet members should pay thier own HC as well. DO they currently get a federal pension? id so thats gone too.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no worries, my friend...I did go back and read it...I really don't agree with you stance...I hope that's ok...
I really don't understand the need to worry about the wealthy paying an extra 3% in taxes + the desire to make the elderly, disabled and poor pay more...
call me kooky but I have a hard time reconciling that....
sorry man, I get rankled when my posts get misinterpreted when I feel they are pretty clear, it automatically makes me think the larger points being made are simply being ignored. So sorry for jumping on you.
It still seems that you haven't responded to the initial point being made...don't you think it makes sense a group that among other things wants income taxes raised on the rich would be viewed favorably by 50 % of the people when 50% of the people don't pay federal income taxes...
and I still see corporate profit taxes as a talking point, but none bring up payroll, state, and local taxes when discussing that...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Love the attitude, especially when you are wrong.
Maybe you should look into federal aid and grants given and what they are given for, which I hope you can figure out how to do.
And what percentage of the costs of the services you listed are from federal grants?
When you said "50% of people don't pay any income tax", that would be wrong on your part. You know it's federal income tax.
where am I ....
And the same people that said the idiots at the tea party rallies didn't represent the whole group are now pulling out single examples of idiots at the OWS and saying they represent the whole group.
This is good stuff.
I think it's fair to say there are a bunch of idiots at both and that they do not represent the whole group. I would venture to guess that most of the tea partiers can spell "our" and most of the OWS aren't just there to get someone to pay their student loans. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
Why You Shouldn't Compare Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party
http://news.yahoo.com/why-shouldnt-comp ... 14606.html
With the Occupy Wall Street protests gaining steam in the U.S., it seems obvious to link it with the other grassroots movement that recently shook up American politics — the Tea Party. My colleagues' pieces number among a flurry of others pondering the parallel. Michael Scherer recast Occupy Wall Street as the Tea Party of the American left. Roya Wolverson suggested how the two movements, coming from diametrically-opposed sides of the political spectrum, could find common ground (and perhaps actual policy influence) in their mutual distaste for a Washington dominated by the vested interests of corporations. But while the similarities are noteworthy, they obscure more relevant truths about Occupy Wall Street, the supposedly inchoate movement that has transfixed the American media in recent weeks. I enumerate these truths after the jump.
1. Occupy Wall Street is an expression of a global phenomenon. A cursory glimpse at newspapers over the weekend would have shown scenes of mass protest across European capitals and cities elsewhere in the world, all in solidarity with the anti-greed protesters in New York. The Tea Party, for all its early brio, commands no such solidarity, nor does it care for it. It's a hyper-nationalist movement in the U.S., lofting the totems of the Constitution and the flag. Few viable political factions across the Atlantic advocate the Tea Party's anti-big government, libertarian agenda (though the xenophobic, culturally-conservative wing of the Tea Party would perhaps see eye to eye with Europe's Islamophobic far-right).
Many of the Occupy Wall Street's participants, on the other hand, consciously see themselves as part of a worldwide uprising, a flame first kindled by the Arab Spring and borne across the Mediterranean by anti-austerity protesters in Europe. In all three settings, social media has played a vital role in mobilizing and organizing the disaffected and the disenfranchised. In all three settings, activists and protesters have drawn to varying degrees from a toolbox of leftist, anarchist protest tactics and made do with minimal institutional support or funds. And in all three settings, the protesters have pulled together sympathizers from across myriad political camps within their countries and somehow made a virtue out of their movement's lack of central leadership. The U.S. economy may not be facing the same existential pressures as those of Greece or Spain, nor are American protesters facing the sort of desperate brutality meted out on brave dissidents in Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria. But the call for social justice echoes the same across continents.
2. Occupy Wall Street is fueled by youth. Reporters covering the ongoing occupation of Zuccotti Park have encountered and profiled a host of characters from all walks and stages of life. One of my favorite interviews so far has been Marsha Spencer, a 56-year-old grandmother who can be found on weekends at the Park's western edge, knitting gloves and scarves for fellow protesters. She makes no bones about what's driving Occupy Wall Street — young people: college students saddled with years of debt, 20-somethings struggling to land a job, and an entire generation banging its head on what seems to be the ever-lowering ceiling of their possibilities. "It's all about them," Spencer told me on a rainy morning last week in Zuccotti Park.
Not true for the Tea Party, whose typical supporter is older, wealthier, and whiter than the American demographic average. It is a movement, by and large, of the haves — not the have nots. "It's essentially reactionary," says David Graeber, a professor of anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, who helped set up Occupy Wall Street's much-heralded General Assembly and is one of the first people to push the movement's now ubiquitous slogan 'We are the 99%'. "The Tea Party core group is white middle-class Republicans who are angry that they seem to be losing their position of preeminence in society." The ranks of Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, are most heavily populated by young people, who, says Graeber, "are supposed to be the ones at the forefront, re-imagining their society." Their protest fits into a long continuum of student and youth rebellions, most recently seen in the Mediterranean rim countries mentioned above.
3. Occupy Wall Street may prove much harder to co-opt into the political mainstream. Many have speculated what direction Occupy Wall Street will turn as it picks up momentum and encroaches on the U.S. 2012 Presidential campaign. Will the protest get co-opted by the country's big unions? Will D.C.-based advocacy groups like MoveOn.org try to exploit for its own ends the success of motley, diverse bands of protesters occupying dozens of downtowns across the U.S.? And, most importantly, will Occupy Wall Street radicalize the Democratic base the way the Tea Party energized the far-right of the Republicans?
At present, it's hard to see how Occupy Wall Street can generate the left-wing, Democratic versions of Rand Paul or Michele Bachmann. Few of the protesters one speaks to have any tolerance for either political party, which they say are both equally enmeshed in a political system entirely beholden to vested corporate interests. The Tea Party, boosted by financial titans and one of the U.S.'s most influential cable news network, was able to make the leap from grassroots anger to effective Beltway politicking. Occupy Wall Street has no such benefactors nor mouthpiece, and will have to undergo a massive — and potentially divisive — transformation should it become the sort of tempered, streamlined (what many would deem 'compromised') political player that can actually throw its weight behind the Obama Administration. For the time being, it remains a social movement far more interested in the sort of "direct democracy" practiced during occupations than that which gets negotiated in the corridors of power in D.C. The sentiments below may have been expressed by an exasperated Greek blogger in June, but they reverberate around Zuccotti Park today:
We will not suffer any more so that we can make the rich, even richer. We do not authorise any of the politicians, who failed so spectacularly, to borrow any more money in our name. We do not trust you or the people that are lending it. We want a completely new set of accountable people at the helm, untainted by the fiascos of the past. You have run out of ideas.
4. Occupy Wall Street still believes in politics and government. And this is where another important line has to be drawn. Whereas much of the Tea Party's programmatic ire seems directed at the very idea of government — and trumpets instead the virtue of self-reliance and the inexorable righteousness of the free market — Occupy Wall Street more sharply decries the collusion of corporate and political elites in Washington. The answer, for many of the protesters I've spoken with, is never the wholesale dismantling or whittling away of the capabilities of political institutions (except, perhaps, the Fed), but a subtler disentangling of Wall Street from Washington. Government writ large is not the problem, just the current sort of government.
Because, at the end of the day, Occupy Wall Street, like most idealistic social movements, wants real political solutions. Excited activists in Zuccotti Park spoke to me about the advent of "participatory budgeting" in a number of City Council districts in New York — an egalitarian system, first brought about in leftist-run cities in Latin America, that allows communities to dole out funds in their neighborhoods through deliberation and consensus-building. It's the same process that gets played out every day by the activist general assemblies held in Zuccotti Park and other occupation sites around the U.S. To the outside observer, that may seem foolishly utopian — and impracticable on a larger scale — but it's a sign of the deep political commitments of many of the motley protesters gathering under Occupy Wall Street's banner. They want to fix government, not escape from it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Only difference is that TP members will demand change while voting for Republicans (who'll fuck them over), whilst OWS members will demand change while voting for Democrats (who'll fuck them over). Boy, what a plan!
again, why put so much effort into making them different?. I get it, after years of calling the tea party people crazy, most on the left actually think they are so to be compared to them is the worst thing in the world in their eyes...Essentially both want the government to quit being in the favor business...
The only difference I see is that one believes that the government is part of the problem and should be shrunk, and one believes that government is part of the problem but can also somehow be the solution. Too bad, they could be one hell of a movement if they joined forces. The organization of the tea party and the youthful energy and excitement of the OWS could really be a force for political reform. Sort of like how Gi Joe and Cobra joined forces...don't have to be buddies all the time, but can certainly change the system for the good of both.
But keep letting them tell you how noble one is and how evil the other is...makes it easier
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
how can they afford student loans when they cant get hired bc some greedy CEO needs his outrageous bonus to come in every year bc of his awesome job of cutting jobs, increasing workloads on current employees and outsourcing?
can't get hired or cannot find a job in their field? I realize that no one wants to dig ditches, but you have to start somewhere...college education or not, you need to work to pay your bills. Work isn't a right, it is a privilege. No one is guaranteed to get a job out of college, and no one is guaranteed to keep one.
What happened to simply shoveling shit in this country? i was face down in it for a few years and now I am where I want to be...no one promised me anything and no one felt sorry for me when I was struggling.
Just a bit of unsolicited advice to people complaining about their student loan debt or lot in life...i used to blame everyone else for my problems, and when I couldn't find a person or a reason, I simply blamed the universe...but a strange thing happened when I started to own my problems like unemployment, debt up to my eyeballs, not having a place I could call home... I fixed them....As soon as I looked at my problems as my fault, I was able to change my behavior and now own a house, have a family, and a pretty damn good job that I worked my ass off to get. Nothing worth having will ever be given to anyone who doesn't go out there and try to take it...
You may not always have control of your choices, but you always get to make decisions.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Obama: Occupy Wall Street 'Not That Different' From Tea Party Protests
President Obama, who has become a target of the Occupy Wall Street protests sweeping the country, today embraced the economic frustration being given voice on the streets and said that his vision for America’s economic system is best suited to resolve protesters’ concerns.
“I understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests,” Obama told ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper in an exclusive interview from Jamestown, N.C.
“In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party. Both on the left and the right, I think people feel separated from their government. They feel that their institutions aren’t looking out for them,” he said.
.....
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-occupy-wall-street-not-different-tea-party-171041906.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
there are differences but let's not overstate them.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 ... ruling.php
"Eighty-five percent of the Democrats polled were opposed to the ruling, while 76% percent of Republicans and 81% of independents also said they were opposed. The nearly unanimous opposition crosses more than just party lines."
Both want government reform so that the government is no longer in the favor doing business. No bailouts, businesses should rise and fall on their own. You see, that isn't that different. So if you can reform politics to remove special interests, crony capitalism...I think both sides can agree that would make things better.
After reforming the entire political system, and mainly the corporate influence on the , then they can get back to disagreeing about where money and how much of it should be spent...they can get back to disagreeing about the role of the federal government...but that doesn't mean they disagree about getting rid of government sponsored crony capitalism.
So both see, at least should see, the current government system as the enemy...and as you know...the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But for all the conspiracy theorists I see on here about where the media drives wedges and all that to keep us all divided...why are they not seeing it here?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan