How is Occupy Wall Street Not Like the TEA Party??

To me this is what occupy wall street is about...

dignin wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

dignin wrote:

Thats a good question, it's almost like the chicken and the egg. The government should have had regulations in place so these indiscretions by the "greedy" couldnt have happened. The truth of it is I think they are both almost one in the same now. Judging by how much the government.....on both sides.....protects the top 1%'s interests its tuff to tell the difference. That is why I dont think it really matters where they protest, New York or Washington (both kind of the same) except to me New York (Wall Street) is more symbolic and will maybe have more of an impact.

Did the top 1% provide the bailouts or was it the government? Did the top 1% keep interest rates too low for too long leading to the housing bubble and collapse or was it the government? Was it the top 1% that has been printing money to combat this crisis or was that the government? Was it the top 1% that decided to set up new entitlement programs, despite the full knowledge that the other ones would be broke in several years, or was that the government? Was it the top 1% or the government that decided to spend their way out of the recession? Finally, and most importantly, is it the top 1% or the government that sets tax rates?

What is it exactly that the top 1% has done. The more I learn about these protests, these people are being spoon fed talking points from the current administration. This isn't about bailouts, it's about deflecting blame from the current administration.

If this was really about the problems with bailouts, I would be totally supporting this cause. I think we all know, it's not.

To answer your question it was the top 1% who needed the bailouts and yes to almost everyone of your other questions.

Im pretty sure you missed my point, to me they are one in the same (1%=gov=republicans=democrats). This protest is bigger than the current administration. There is plenty of blame to go around, both with this current government, the one before it and the next government. The system is broken, these protesters are trying to expose it. Your politicians are bought and paid for before they are elected.

You're right, the bailouts shouldn't have happened (at least in the present form). The same people protesting today I am sure were the same people objecting to the big banks and others getting the bailouts (most Americans). Giving money out "willy nilly" with no strings attached was bullshit.....but to me it was them taking money out of your pocket (taxpayer) and then switching money from one hand to the other. The gov=1%.....they took YOUR money and gave it to the top 1%. If I were you I would have been out in the streets then....some were. It's never to late.

I think you're stretching. The top 1% have a right to make money and not have it confiscated by the government, they already pay about 40% of all income taxes. You want to tax them further. I get that, but trying to tie that to the bailouts and the financial crisis is silly. They didn't take my money and give it to them. That's also silly.

Nevertheless, I agree with some of your other points. Like the bailouts should have never happened.

My point: Government is to blame. And the irony is these people are protesting government, they just don't want to protest government because there guy is in the white house. That's why this is so confusing for them to have a coherent message.

dignin wrote:

To answer your question it was the top 1% who needed the bailouts and yes to almost everyone of your other questions.

Im pretty sure you missed my point, to me they are one in the same (1%=gov=republicans=democrats). This protest is bigger than the current administration. There is plenty of blame to go around, both with this current government, the one before it and the next government. The system is broken, these protesters are trying to expose it. Your politicians are bought and paid for before they are elected.

You're right, the bailouts shouldn't have happened (at least in the present form). The same people protesting today I am sure were the same people objecting to the big banks and others getting the bailouts (most Americans). Giving money out "willy nilly" with no strings attached was bullshit.....but to me it was them taking money out of your pocket (taxpayer) and then switching money from one hand to the other. The gov=1%.....they took YOUR money and gave it to the top 1%. If I were you I would have been out in the streets then....some were. It's never to late.

Who would have lost their jobs and their houses if the bailout didn't happen? The 1% or the protestors? The 1% (which really is a silly tag and is just another class warfare mechanism) would still have their houses on the French Riveira, and 10's of thousands of people would be out of jobs. I was against the bailouts. But, that was what the money did. If GM had failed, the CEO would have still had his millions from his prior years' salaires. It's the union that would have taken the brunt. So, complain about the bailouts, but the people protesting are the people it benefitted most. Handouts are never good. It creates this monster.

inlet13 wrote:

dignin wrote:

quote]

To answer your question it was the top 1% who needed the bailouts and yes to almost everyone of your other questions.

Im pretty sure you missed my point, to me they are one in the same (1%=gov=republicans=democrats). This protest is bigger than the current administration. There is plenty of blame to go around, both with this current government, the one before it and the next government. The system is broken, these protesters are trying to expose it. Your politicians are bought and paid for before they are elected.

You're right, the bailouts shouldn't have happened (at least in the present form). The same people protesting today I am sure were the same people objecting to the big banks and others getting the bailouts (most Americans). Giving money out "willy nilly" with no strings attached was bullshit.....but to me it was them taking money out of your pocket (taxpayer) and then switching money from one hand to the other. The gov=1%.....they took YOUR money and gave it to the top 1%. If I were you I would have been out in the streets then....some were. It's never to late.

I think you're stretching. The top 1% have a right to make money and not have it confiscated by the government, they already pay about 40% of all income taxes. You want to tax them further. I get that, but trying to tie that to the bailouts and the financial crisis is silly. They didn't take my money and give it to them. That's also silly.

Nevertheless, I agree with some of your other points. Like the bailouts should have never happened.

My point: Government is to blame. And the irony is these people are protesting government, they just don't want to protest government because there guy is in the white house. That's why this is so confusing for them to have a coherent message.

[/quote]

silly? just take a quick look at who got your money....
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Ledbetterdays wrote:

To me this is what occupy wall street is about...

1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?

2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.

3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.

4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?

5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.

6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.

7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.

the Y axis measures income for each variable (median and top 1%) it is adjusted for inflation.

The 1945 median and top 1% income were both about $2400; in 2007 dollars, that translates to about $24,000. Looking at the graph, the median income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 2.5 ~ $60,000. The top 1% income in 2001 (in 2007 dollars) is $24,000 x 3.2 ~ $76,800.

Do we really need to see beyond 2007 since taxes are lower then they have been in 50 years?

Your point about capitol gains might hold water--I am not an economist nor did I create the chart but most of the 99% do not even have a reason to know what that means.

The chart represents a feeling in this country that the American Dream has been supplanted by the Corporate American Dream that has caused an expanding in the disparity of who controls wealth and therefore power in this country.

inlet13 wrote:

Ledbetterdays wrote:

To me this is what occupy wall street is about...

1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?

2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.

3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.

4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?

5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.

6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.

7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.

inlet13 wrote:

Ledbetterdays wrote:

To me this is what occupy wall street is about...

1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?

...
i'm not an economist... but, i believe the numbers along the X axis are calendar years.

Again... i'm not an economist... but, i think i know the answers to some of your questions.
1) There's no units on the x and y axis. Did a third grader make this chart?
X is a timeline.
Y is an amount (in millions, billions? I don't know, but there are numbers on the Y axis).

2) I'm assuming it's growth. Even so, you can't compare medians (median income) with averages (the top 1%, which I think is an average). This would be an example of skewing data. Change it, I'd like to see the result.
Isn't a median... an average? Take the high and the low and come up with a median. not as accurate as adding up all of the figures and dividing by the numers holding the figure. But, similar.

3) Cut out the capital gains, and let's see how that effects the chart. Capital gains affect business and create jobs, which spill back to the median income (via job creation). They are definitely pushing the top 1% up. Yet, also helping the median (but less so). They are good, but skew the results.
Are the Capital gains included to ommited?

4) Why's the data end before President Obama was elected? What's happened since?
Maybe because the chart is from 2007. I don't remember Obama being President in 2007.

5) Why is growth exactly equal in 1945? Is this data indexed? If so, that fudges the whole thing.
You'll have to analyze the raw data for that.

6) Even if there were clear cut answers to all of the above, I still don't get it. Everyone's incomes have been growing. So, if Person A's grows faster, they should be penalized? Even if Person A is paying much more as a percentage of his income in taxes already? Sorry... I don't buy it.

7) This has nothing little to nothing to do with the financial crisis / the recession,... or why people are jobless.
I thought it was supposed to point out how 1% of the population holds 20% on the wealth

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

and why people would defend this top 1% and the bankers who would have you thrown out of your house without a second thought is beyond me....

Perhaps the most ardent defenders of the financial and corporate elite are also members of the club. You don't try to change things when you're playing for the winning team.