Occupy Wall Street
https://occupywallst.org/

===============================


"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

--Louis Brandeis
Supreme Court Justice / 1941


===================================


"The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."

--Edward Dowling

Union Sundown

Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Copyright ©1983

Occupy Wall Street: The Most Important Thing in the World Now
October 6, 2011 / http://tinyurl.com/436zm5t
If there is one thing I know, it is that the 1 percent loves a crisis. When people are panicked and desperate and no one seems to know what to do, that is the ideal time to push through their wish list of pro-corporate policies: privatizing education and social security, slashing public services, getting rid of the last constraints on corporate power. Amidst the economic crisis, this is happening the world over.
And there is only one thing that can block this tactic, and fortunately, it’s a very big thing: the 99 percent. And that 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”

That slogan began in Italy in 2008. It ricocheted to Greece and France and Ireland and finally it has made its way to the square mile where the crisis began.
“Why are they protesting?” ask the baffled pundits on TV. Meanwhile, the rest of the world asks: “What took you so long?” “We’ve been wondering when you were going to show up.” And most of all: “Welcome.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/163844/occupy-wall-street-most-important-thing-world-now

I agree with the comments of caspian.Another effective method would be for taxpayers to forget to file their income tax next april. Within 2 weeks you would see that worthless congress come to life and start creating jobs instead of acting like 12 yr old and argueing over parlientary procedure and going on vacation every 2nd week. The public if fed up with their nonsense whether they are republican or democrats independents or tea party.

HALF A CHERRY - THE WALL STREET PROTESTS

DON'T JUST BLAME THE CORPORATIONS FOR THE WALL STREET PROTESTS--THE SMALL BUSINESSES TWEAK THEIR PRODUCT OR SERVICE FOR A LARGER PROFIT! AND GREED! EVERYWHERE!

Wall Street protests are nationwide, including LOCALLY-- the small businesses, AND NOT JUST THE LARGE CORPORATIONS.ON WALL STREET.

DELIVER A FIRST CLASS PRODUCT USE TO BE THE FIRST PRIORITY!

LOCALLY, THE ICE CREAM PARLOR SELLS SUNDAES WITH A HALF, I REPEAT--A HALF OF A CHERRY ON TOP AND A SQUIRT OF WHIP CREAM-- SO STINGY WITH THE WHIP CREAM--TWEAKING FOR EXTRA, EXTRA MONEY AND PROFITS, the SAME AS THE CORPORATIONS who are tweaking for their stockholders.

THAT IS AMERICA TODAY--A HALF A CHERRY AND A SQUIRT OF WHIP CREAM! .

THIS SHOULD BE AN EMBARASSMENT TO THE ICE CREAM PARLOR OWNER TO SELL SUCH A PRODUCT--NO AMERICAN PRIDE TODAY--WE ARE ALL INTERDEPENDENT.

REMEMBER WHEN AN AMERICAN HAD PRIDE--SEVERAL WHOLE CHERRIES AND THE SUNDAE WAS BURIED IN WHIP CREAM-- LOTS OF WHIP CREAM? TODAY IT IS PORTION CONTROL, AND VERTICAL ECONOMICS. Use to say fill the glass to the brim--today the glass is marked!

LOCALLY, ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THE FARMERS TODAY WEIGH THE APPLES AND SELL THEM BY THE POUND, AS WELL AS OTHER PRODUCE, E.G., LETTUCE WHICH USE TO BE SOLD BY THE HEAD REGARDLESS OF SIZE. REMEMBER PECKS AND BUSHELS? USE TO BE PECKS AND BUSHELS--NOT POUNDS AND OUNCES.

YEARS AGO THE LOCALS NEVER PAID FOR APPLES HERE. TODAY THEY ARE WEIGHED BY THE POUND.


THE LOCAL FARMERS USE TO DUMP THE CORN OR APPLES IN A BIN IN THE GROCERY STORE--TODAY, EACH EAR OF CORN OR APPLE IS STRETEGICALLY PLACED AND LINED UP--HILARIOUS! NUTS! Didn't have time to place each ear or apple for such nonsense. Everything looks pretty but it's all about money and greed.

MONEY! MONEY! GREED! IT IS ALL ABOUT HOW THE SMALL BUSINESS OR CORPORATION CAN TWEEK MORE AND GIVE LESS OR DILUTE THE QUALITY TO STILL MAINTAIN OR ADD TO THEIR EXORBITANT PROFITS AND RESERVES.


HENRY FORD WANTED TO BUILD AN AUTOMOBILE THAT EVERY FAMILY IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY COULD AFFORD!

PEOPLE WERE INTERDEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER YEARS AGO. TODAY A KID MAKES BILLIONS FROM THE INTERNET AND, AND, I REPEAT, PUTS HOW MANY PEOLE OUT OF WORK!


BUSINESS IS NOT A CHICKEN OR EGG THING! IT TAKES MONEY TO BUILD A BETTER MOUSETRAP (COMPETITION AND A FREE MARKET) AND TO START A BUSINESS, AND, THESE COSTS WERE ABSORBED BY THE BUSINESS, NOT PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER YEARS AGO. AND IF THE COMPANY HAD A ROUGH PERIOD, OR JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT, IT FAILED--BANKRUPT--NO GOVERNMENT WELFARE, GRANTS, BAILOUTS AND HANDOUTS.. THE EMPLOYEES WERE DEPENDENT ON THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS THOUGHT IT THEIR FIRST RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO THE COMPANY WAS DEPENDENT ON. TODAY THE EMPLOYEE IS CANNON FODDER FIRST!




)

p.S. CHICKEN OR THE EGG? Thereare lots of jobs-- THE CORPORATIONS WONT PROVIDE “SERVICE” ANYMORE TO THE REST OF US AT THE LOWER LEVELS, and HAVE THE REST OF US WORKING FOR THEM IN ADDITION TO PAYING FOR THE PRODUCTS, E.G., PUMPING GAS—EXXON-MOBIL WHO IS SITTING ON $10B despite America’s job crisis and a faltering economy. GREEDY, GREEDIER! THE CORPORATIONS ARE HOARDING CASH!
THE US FIRMS ARE SITTING ON $2 trillion on balance sheets! A rainy-day fund if the economy heads for adouble dip, or its top executives feathering their nest in order to grab hugeyear-end bonuses. Some suspect that in six months there’s going to be a whole lot of cheap labor, cheap companies and cheap real estate to buy, as the country heads towards a serious double dip.,OR ARE HOARDING CASH AS A PRECAUTION AGAINST RESTRICTED LENDING TO THEM.
NO GUARANTEES FOR THE COMPANIES! BUT THERE IS NO JOBS UNLESS THE COMPANY EXPANDS. THE US CONSUMER IS STRETCHED FINANCIALLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO JOBS. CHICKEN OR THE EGG? NO INCENTIVE FOR COMPANEIS TO EXPAND IF THE COMPANY CAN ONLY SELL HALF IF THEY MAKE 100 WIDGETS.

The overall strong performance of s&p companies is disconnected from the reality of the US economy.
THE TOP 20 RANKED CASH POSITIONS FOR s&p 500 FIRMS:

$526B Citigroup $18B Chevron
$414B JPMorgan Chase $14B Coca-Cola
$112B Wells Fargo $12B Intel
$92B General Electric $12B IBM
$53B Microsoft $10B Exxon Mobil
$39B Google $9B Walmart
$29B oracle $5BSchlumberger
$28B Apple $4B AT&T
$27B Johnson & Johnson $3Bprocter & Gamble
$24B Pfizer $2BPhilip Morris
TOTAL: $1.4 TRILLION

THE SYTEM IS TOP HEAVY—ALL THE MONEY IS TOWARD THE TOP!


ESTIMATED AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS!
$2,387.60 lawyers
$2,983.60 doctors
$748.80 nurses
$786.40 construction workers
AND
$262.00 MINIMUM WAGE SALARY
- Show quoted text -

TWEEKAING AND TRICKERY!

RE: Wall Street protest Large or small business, keep chipping away for more profit. How much smaller is the hershey candy bar from the 1950's? which cost a nickel? A box of cereal, Cheerios, Corn Flakes is how much smaller? Instead of charging more for the same hershey candy bar in 1950, the candy bar has been reduced repeatedly in size? How much has the quality of the ingredients been changed?

Another example is a loaf of Freihofer bread or Wonder bread. The loaf was larger for less. Insted of raising the price, the loaf gets shorter.

A gallon of ice cream ISN'T A GALLON TODAY--COUPLE OF OUNCES SHORT. or, mayonnaise is not a quart, couple of ounces kess than a quart.

Half a cherry on a sundae!

Where is Mike Q? Even though we disagree the man thinks for himself. All I see here is parroting of the same old left wing and MSM talking points. Think for yourselves! They got you playing Simon Sez and you don't even realize it!

The problem is not American Capitalism. The problem is government. You don't reward greed and careless incompetence with NO STRINGS ATTACHED BAILOUTS, then cross your fingers that all will be okay.

And what about jobs? All these educated politicians and all the government can come up with is another spending package? All the left can come up with is class warfare and the right the blame game? Our jobs problem is because of unfair trade agreements in a Global economy. We have middle class American workers competing with 50 cent's an hour workers in third world countries. Government policies and trade agreements got us into this mess and instead of correcting their wrongs, their answer is to raise taxes on US or spend more of OUR money.

Ask yourselves, why do they ignore the obvious and refuse to fix what is broken?

G:

The fact of the matter is, without a socialist big brother or a corporate oliarchy -to tell them what to do, these individuals would most likely starve to death.

Another effective method would be for taxpayers to forget to file their income tax next april. peter

==================

Remember Alphonse Capone?

LOL

"Another effective method would be for taxpayers to forget to file their income tax next april." peter

Hmmm... unless they are making over $100K it might not be as effective as you think:

"According to an analysis of 2009 tax data by the Tax Policy Center, about 90 percent of households with an annual income below $20,000 paid no federal income tax. Among households with incomes of $20,000 to $50,000, about 48 percent paid no federal income tax; for incomes of $50,000 to $100,000, it was about 12.5 percent. For incomes above $100,000, it was about 2 percent."

http://www.ehow.com/info_8023998_percent-pay-federal-income-taxes.html#ixzz1aCVLVG5z


"The fact of the matter is, without a socialist big brother or a corporate oliarchy -to tell them what to do, these individuals would most likely starve to death." -Fred

They listen to the rich Hollywood left elite, MSM elite and the political elite. All of whom play by different rules then the hardworking independent. Yet somehow, they believe they are independent or independent thinkers.

WALL STREET PROTEST FOR GREED INCLUDES THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. FOR EXAMPLE,

Locally in Red Hook, New York, population 11,834, apple country, apples are sold by the POUND AND LAID OUT, placed STRATEGICALLY IN ROWS IN THE STORES, insted of sold by the peck, quart, or bushel, etc., and just dumped in a bin unsorted.

It is up to the small business owner to dot the i's and cross the t's--to provide something more than the competition to draw/attract customers. This is not a chicken or egg thing.

The corporations have no costs of business today--everything is passed on to the customer--especially BANKS--WHICH USE COMPUTERS TO PROVIDE MANY OF THEIR SERVICES FOR FEES FOR THINGS WHICH SHOULD BE FREE.

WALL STREET PROTEST FOR GREED INCLUDES THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. FOR EXAMPLE,

Half a CHERRY ON THE SUNDAE AT THE LOCAL ICE CREAM PARLOR IN RED HOOK, NEW YORK! AND A SQUIRT OF WHIP CREAM-- THE ICE CREAM PARLOR USE TO COVER THE SUNDAE WITH WHIP CREAM! SYMBOLIC OF GREED IN AMERICA TODAY! The parking lot is loaded with vehicles getting ice cream all the time, still small business owners are finiding ways to increase their profit and cut corners on the product or service.


TWEEKAING AND TRICKERY! Large or small business, keep chipping away for more profit. How much smaller is the hershey candy bar TODAY from the 1950's AND COSTS A DOLLAR OR MORE? which cost a nickel BACK THEN? A box of Cheerios, Corn Flakes is how much smaller? Instead of charging more for the same hershey candy bar in 1950, the candy bar has been reduced repeatedly in size? How much has the quality of the ingredients been changed?

Another example is a loaf of Freihofer bread or Wonder bread. The loaf was larger for less. Insted of raising the price, the loaf gets shorter.

A gallon of ice cream ISN'T A GALLON TODAY--COUPLE OF OUNCES SHORT. or, mayonnaise is not a quart, couple of ounces kess than a quart.

I wonder if the tax policy center also told about how ovr 1600 corporations are registered in the caymman islands to avoid taxes. Now they are also going to switzerland. Sixty minutes did a great expose on switzerland on these corporations which only had a mail box. Did the tax policy center also report over 300 large corporations which paid no taxes at all and even got a rebate in millions from the federal government. Some co included are exxon and general eclectric. Did the tax policy center also report hedge fund managers pay 15% on capital gains on over 5 billion. The tax code has preferential tax treatment for millionaires and large corporation. Millionaires do pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. You can not blame them for taking advantage of this favored treatment. No matter what reform is made to the tax code it will not benefit the middle class and this applies to both rep and dems

A recent president made the following statement; we are going to close the tax loopholes that allowd some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.In theory some of these loopholes were understandable but in practice they made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying more. It time we stopped it. This statement was not made by a flaming liberal like president obama but by president ronald reagan who recognized their were favorable treatment given to certain taxpayers at the expense of the middle class. President reagan comments could be applied to our current situation.

Excellent two posts above peter.

I think you are right on the money and I would vote for you.

One little tweak,

Obama is not a flaming liberal.

Obama is a center/right corporate Democrat like Bill Clinton.

Obama is a Lino, Liberal In Name Only.

Sad, but true.

"Millionaires do pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. You can not blame them for taking advantage of this favored treatment. No matter what reform is made to the tax code it will not benefit the middle class and this applies to both rep and dems"-Peter

Peter:

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

"There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1% of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

Peter, your statements are a good example of the point I am trying to make. It comes across as though all or most millionaires pay less tax then the middle class and that is just not the facts. You are listening to the big government, MSM, left wing crowd that is pushing their own agenda.

So here are the facts:

A) We need tax reform so that EVERYONE pays their fair share. Why not a simple flat tax?

B) As you state, it is not the fault of the rich but it is also not the fault of Corporations for taking advantage of legal loopholes that the government allows. So again, the problem lies in government.

Reagan recognized something was broken that needed to be fixed, "we are going to close the TAX LOOPHOLES that allowd SOME of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share". His statement makes perfect sense to all. Unfortunately, I just don't get that same sense from Obama's ideas. While his statements are almost the same, it seems as though he does not want to fix what is broken but rather increase the size of government, redistribute wealth and change America, like he changed healthcare with Obamacare. Whatever, he is saying, right or wrong people are simply not connecting or believing him. Personally, I think it all has to do with Obamacare, when he defied the populist. I don't think anything is going to get done until we change leadership. It is not a Dem or Rep thing. Clinton got things done. Right now, I would vote for Hilliary over Obama.

"All I see here is parroting of the same old left wing and MSM talking points. Think for yourselves! They got you playing Simon Sez and you don't even realize it!"-MG

Well gee, G, who's parroting whom or what? When the Tea Party echoed the right's notion that we can no longer afford to have the America we used to know, that we have to give up on that and keep settling for less and less, Fox News praised the TP as fine patriots, noble revolutionaries. But when OWS says the money is still there, just not circulating the way it needs to for the economy to keep working, Fox News blasts these protestors as hooligans and worse.

So Naomi Klein is excited about OWS, and calls it pretty much the most important current event, who is she aping? Caspian cites The Nation's article about her comments. Reporting is parroting?

Or is it that it is a tell-tale indication of right-leaning to view appreciation of OWS as mindless parroting of talking points written by some leftie version of the right's Frank Luntz? (Note that there IS a Frank Luntz. Who is the left's talking point moderator?)

Heh heh...got Q into the mix.

I suppose we are all a product of the 24x7 media to one degree or another but there is a difference. If I said the TP were "fine patriots" or OWS are “hooligans” because FOX news says so, then I am a parrot. If I said OWS "is the most important current event" because some foreign writer or Hollywood elite leftist says it is, I am playing Simon Sez.

However, I am not a parrot if I examine the facts or experience the movement myself and come to my own conclusions. So for BOTH OWS and TP, I see valid reasons to rally and protest, as well as some not so valid reasons. I don’t call OWS “hooligans” just because they clashed with police and I don’t call TP “dangerous” like many on the left did when the TP is perfectly peaceful. I don’t call OWS a fake rally, just because paid Unions joined the protest and I don’t call the TP “Astroturf” when average Americans of all walks of life rally. Nope, I think for myself and try to examine the facts without bias or agenda.

BTW, my parroting comment was not directed at OWS or any one person, only that a lot of info on these boards are not original thought. You have complained yourself about the cut and paste stuff. I wonder, when BillF does it, is that reporting too? hmmm

If you went to work for only room and board, with no money payment of any kind, you would still owe the govt tax money, even if you didnt earn any money. Go figure.

The reason for the discrepancy of some millionaires paying a lower tax rate is due to whether they receive a million dollars from wages or if some of this income comes from dividends and capital gains which is taxes at a lower rate. For example warren buffett collects both cap gains and dividends and his rate is lower than his secretary. A baseball player may make a million (many more millions) but have no investments and pay the higher rate. For both millionaires and corporations they employ accountants who take advantage of the tax code for their clients. But a small business owner who only has 1 cpa to fill out his forms pays a higher rate than say exxon. This is where it is unfair. One gets favorable treatment and the other one pays through the nose. A flat tax probably would be better. Several years ago I read one flat tax but on stock options for executives under this proposal they would not be taxed even when they used the option. I do not really trust either party to write a good tax proposal to be fair to all categeries of taxpayers. Some get favorable treatment and as a result you have that mess known as the 1040 for individuals. Maybe someday someone will come out with a solution but do not leave it the cpa lawyers or congress.

Peter, I agree! Lets fix what is broken. I don't trust either party either, so there has to be a way for the system itself to prevent unfair loopholes. I think the simpler the better. In most cases stock options are considered income and taxed as income. If they are not, then that needs fixing. Most high paid CEO's are paid with stock options. In a big company for example, they may make a one million dollar base salary but 25 or 30 million in options. Those options are income and need to be taxed when exercised. Of Course, if they are not exercised they can't be taxed because their basis may change. These are certainly fair and reasonable ideas and if government does not pursue these basic fixes, then they are the problem.

"If you went to work for only room and board, with no money payment of any kind, you would still owe the govt tax money, even if you didnt earn any money. Go figure."

Fred, what if you pass the age of 21 and still live home with your parents for free, but took care of the house isn't that the same as working for room and board? I guess the taxman has not figured that one out yet. They will eventually. IMO, the most unjust tax is the gift tax. You mean if I want to give my money away, I have to pay taxes on that? They are extortionist, I tell you.

G: the taxes I'm refering too didnt even become law until after ww2.

Personal taxes barely existed prior to the 1920's. Your govt is hosing you in a major way.

Did you know that nearly 1 million dollars of QE 1 went to Africa to teach african males how to (wash) keep their penis foreskin clean?

Those are some of your tax dollars at work. So when I hear or read about Americans who think their neighbors should pay more in taxes, I conclude that they are ignorant or jealous. You'd be floored to know what the us govt does with your money. And its not just todays money. They are borrowing 40% a year....compounded on the working backs of your kids. ONLY AN IMBECILE WOULD ADVOCATE THE RAISING OF TAXES.

A smart person would hold the govt to task. Unfortunately, smart people are on the decline.

G, re TP and OWS:

Margaret Thatcher said there is no society, just individuals. She dismantled as much as she could of any kind of public service structure, and made a heavy-handed point of never taking a train,-that quintessential public service. By the end of her tenure, Britain had dropped like a rock in quality-of-life measures, yet after all that, Britain was on no sounder financial footing than countries that did not have a Thatcher. All that had happened was a redistribution of wealth upwards to the too-big-to-fail financial institutions.

If England was not totally plundered, it was only because of the persistance of public spirit. If Thatcher had succeeded in making it true that there is no society, only individuals, this atomization of society into that weakest of human units- individuals- would have left England some kind of Mad Max dystopia.

But she could never have succeeded in doing that. Wisconsin shows that people will eventually push back. OWS shows that people will eventually push back.

What about the Tea Party? Well, in a prettied-up way, they echo Thatcherism. It's because of their reaction to crisis that they don't ring true. Their demands so perfectly dovetail in the end with what benefits the wealthy at our expense, that it's just too hard to believe they speak for the people, even if they are people themselves.

As for Bill's pastes,-they're opinion pieces, while Caspian's paste was a copy of a news article. But I suppose the quasi-factual support arguments in those op ed pieces make them close enough to news, and your point then is verrry well taken.

It is no coincidence why the Tax Code has 71,684 pages.

The lobbyist donate to the prostitutes in Congress.

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
March 24, 2011 / http://tinyurl.com/46ac8wk
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1

"By the end of her tenure, Britain had dropped like a rock in quality-of-life measures, yet after all that, Britain was on no sounder financial footing than countries that did not have a Thatcher. All that had happened was a redistribution of wealth upwards to the too-big-to-fail financial institutions."Q

Mike,there were a whole bunch of Socialist and Communist countries that have failed never to return. The Europeans pay higher taxes then us and as a whole, are doing worse then us economically. If you blame Capitalism for Worldwide economic collapse then that means you also NEED Capitalism in order to have big government. And therein lies the problem with your philosophy. If we did not need the too big too fails then we would have let then fail. So on one hand we all need them and the rich 1% to produce jobs and keep the economy and the government going and on the other hand some think they should redistribute their fruits to us, beyond what they owe us, just because they have more.

So both TP and OWS recognizes that government has failed us. That government was asleep at the wheel allowing too big too fails to grow. That government bailed them out, effectively paying a ransom with our money and that government still has not corrected the problem. Both TP and OWS recognize Corporate greed and excess and would love to see the elite high paying execs and CEO's brought down several notches or brought to justice for laws they may have broken.

However, where we differ greatly is in this respect. Your "persistent public spirit" and the "push back" is a group of people demanding that those that have, give to the have nots in the form of tax hikes or bigger government. Where as the "individual spirit" says screw you to the 1% and the greedy rich. I don't need your money. I will find a way to make it on my own. That individual entrepreneur spirit is what America was founded on which is why we left England and became an Independent nation.

Wall Street’s Disgruntled Utopians:
October 10, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street protesters are looking more and more like the shock troops of the Democratic Party’s electoral tactic of class warfare. Responding to a question about the protesters, the President gave an oblique endorsement when he said, “The American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that.” That would be the same rule-bending Wall Street from which his 2008 campaign received more money than any other politician in history. Forgetting that largess as he demonizes the rich, the President now wants a 5.6% surtax on millionaires, which would include not just Wall Street fat cats, but small businesses on Main Street. Certainly organized labor also thinks they can use the protesters, which is why some labor groups––particularly public employee unions hooked up to diminishing taxpayer-funded life support––are marching alongside them, in the hopes that they can exploit this movement to protect their Cadillac benefits.

The protesters themselves comprise the usual suspects: badly educated young people (“Students loans=indentured servitude,” read one sign), aging hippies, leftover leftists (“Marx Was Right,” read another), and the purveyors of various wacky conspiracy theories, like the guy whose sign links the Federal Reserve to the pyramid on the dollar bill. This mélange explains the profound ignorance of economic reality that lies behind the protesters’ complaints about the “greed and corruption of the 1%.” In this melodrama, “Wall Street” and “corporations” have rigged the system so that they enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else. “Growing income inequality” is the proof of this nefarious behavior, as the left-wing magazine Mother Jones reports: “A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.” Q.E.D.

What Mother Jones leaves out, of course, is some facts I’ve brought up before about the same period. In 1981, the top 1% paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes; in 2005, this same cohort paid 39.38%. In 1981 the top 1% paid $94.84 billion (in 2005 dollars); in 2005 they paid $368.13, an increase of 288%. In the most progressive tax system among OECD economies, today the top 10% of American taxpayers pay 70% of all revenues, while the bottom 47% pay nothing. In other words, this increasing “income inequality” has led to the rich footing most of the tax bill for all the goodies the federal government dispenses. Contrary to the current class-warfare rhetoric, “If you want to get more tax revenues from the rich,” economist Arthur Laffer points out, “you’ve got to make the rich richer, and to make the rich richer, you’ve got to lower tax rates.” If the “anarchists for Big Government,” as Mark Steyn calls them, really want more federal money for their demands like “free college education,” “a $20 minimum wage,” and a trillion dollars for “ecological restoration,” they should be endorsing supply-side economics.

Defense Spending Is Not the Problem:

Congress should remember that we are still facing very real threats.

October 10, 2011

The approaching debt-reduction recommendations from the “Super Committee” seem unlikely to generate a bipartisan consensus. Under the law that created the committee, if Congress doesn’t trim at least $1.2 trillion from the next ten years’ worth of spending, the difference will be made up in massive across-the-board cuts. Certain budget areas — including entitlements — will be exempt from the cuts, but defense will not. The resulting cuts to the Pentagon budget could set back our national security, research capabilities, and industrial base for decades.

Is defense spending really the problem? Defense spending currently accounts for less than 20 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government. And budget experts warn that our current level of defense spending masks shortfalls — after the last decade of “hollow growth” and extended combat, our equipment stocks have only grown “smaller and older.”

Before he left his post as defense secretary, Robert Gates identified almost $200 billion in defense savings and canceled more than 30 programs. He warned, however, that another round of heavy cuts would be “catastrophic.”

Despite such warnings, the president has called for $400 billion in defense cuts over twelve years, and some members of Congress have called for $1 trillion or more. Further, in the event that Congress fails to cut at least $1.2 trillion in total, the aforementioned across-the-board cuts will be split evenly between security and non-security spending. That means security cuts of up to $600 billion.

Congress should remember that we are still facing very real threats. Today, we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and fighting al-Qaeda across the globe using intelligence and special-operations forces backed up with Predator drones and other modern technologies. We’re also protecting the nascent democratic movements in Libya and elsewhere, expanding operations to hot spots like Yemen, and rotating home a fighting force worn down by a decade of repeated, extended combat deployments.

Terror attacks are on the rise as the threat spreads around the globe — according to the National Counterterrorism Center, there were 2,534 terror attacks worldwide in 2010, nearly triple the 945 recorded five years ago.

And as if these rising threats weren’t daunting enough, a surging China is building a new aircraft carrier, several nations are developing and flying stealth aircraft to challenge our dominance of the skies, and space has becoming a battleground of its own, as the Chinese recently proved by shooting one of their own satellites out of the sky. Rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are steaming ahead, developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that put the entire world at risk.

The last ten years have demonstrated that there is no virtue in using low-tech methods to fight low-tech enemies. The methods we use to combat simple IEDs rely on cutting-edge technologies.

Virtually every major success in the war against terrorism — from Operation Jawbreaker, which dropped special forces into Afghanistan to identify Taliban targets for destruction, to the killing of Osama bin Laden, which depended on advanced drones, stealth aircraft, and orbiting satellites as well as our SEAL marksmen — can be attributed to our superior military technology used by a superbly trained force.

Similarly, the Defense Department’s own forward-looking strategy review warns that “U.S. air forces in future conflicts will encounter integrated air defenses of far greater sophistication and lethality than those fielded by adversaries” in previous conflicts. Expert analyses call for more investment in fighter aircraft — from multi-purpose F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to the lower cost F-15s and F-18s — if we want to maintain U.S. dominance in the skies.

The Pentagon may understand the shift we’ve experienced from the Cold War to the asymmetrical shadow world of terrorists and rogue states, but does the Congress? The paradox of technology means that even the lowest-rent criminals and despots can now get hold of the most sophisticated and devastating armaments. From Pakistan to Libya to Yemen, our ability to act in ungoverned or insecure places without unduly risking American lives depends on being able to do so with stealth and precision.

Those sounding the alarm about the deficit are surely well intentioned, but they must square their cleaver-like cut proposals with our actual security needs.

REVOLUTION IS ANOTHER WORD FOR "OCCUPY WALL STREET!"

message board?

"a whole bunch of Socialist and Communist countries that have failed"-MG

USSR. Big list.

Some European, so-called socialist, countries are doing better than the US. Germany, for instance. Still sound, low unemployment, high unionism and wages, good standard of living. Those Euro countries that suffered were those that copied our ways. The "Irish miracle" was nothing more than unconstrained speculation,-a bubble. Modest little Iceland was sound until they started playing with pure high finance. Germany stuck with manufacture. (And look! Their high taxes did not drive investors to leave! Their high unionism did not drive investors away! The right's gospel is so clearly pure lies.)

"If you blame Capitalism for Worldwide economic collapse"

If? But I don't. It was capitalism's bubbles that collapsed, not the validity of the structure of various societies and governments. I blame right/neoliberal politicians for removing the sensible restraints on capitalism.

"the problem with your philosophy"

What philosophy is that?

"If we did not need the too big too fails"

Remember Bell Telephone? It was considered too big, was broken up, and an explosion of new technology resulted. For a while there, we did break up the too-bigs, and we were so much the better for that. The ascendancy of the right/neoliberal gospel ended that.

"we all need them and the rich 1% to produce jobs and keep the economy and the government going and on the other hand some think they should redistribute their fruits to us"

The rich only provide jobs when there is a demand for goods, so that they can make money. If there's no demand, they will sit on their money while millions lose their homes.

What any economy needs, to keep functioning, is for the money that came from the consumer and went to the rich continues to circulate, and not just sit forever at the top. NO ECONOMY WILL FUNCTION ONCE THIS CIRCULATION STOPS. Taxation brings the money full circle, so that it can keep going back to the top again, round and round forever.

"a group of people demanding that those that have, give to the have nots in the form of tax hikes or bigger government"

Please refer to the previous paragraph. It's not some kind of theft by the unwashed and unworthy, conservative class resentment notwithstanding.

"the 'individual spirit' says screw you to the 1%"

That's fine for the guy mowing lawns, who has no expectation of a generational improvement in our civilization. Verizon is not going to maintain our bridges and tunnels. Exxon is not going to finance a Communicable Disease Center. Taxes do that. And no flat tax, either. A rate that's low enough to be feasible for the working class, applied to the top 1%, would not generate anywhere near enough revenue to maintain even a third-rate civilization. If you want to live like a Biafran, just to avoid some strained claim of unfair treatment of billionaires, then please move to Africa. If you want your hard work to yield a good life for you, you'll need more than just what you can provide for yourself; you'll need an advanced, modern society in good working order. That costs money, lots of it.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

USSR. Big list. -Q

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as the USSR or Soviet Union for short) consisted of Russia and surrounding countries that today make up Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

And For the record Germany is not a socialist country.

FYI.

Socialism is an economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services.

It was capitalism's bubbles that collapsed, not the validity of the structure of various societies and governments. I blame right/neoliberal politicians for removing the sensible restraints on capitalism.- Q

I agree.

The funny thing about liberals and progessives is that they are only 'moral' and 'nationalistic' when it comes to the confiscation of other peoples sweat equity.

"USSR. Big list." Q

Ah the power of google. More like close to 100 no longer exist.

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

"Modest little Iceland was sound until they started playing with pure high finance. Germany stuck with manufacture. (And look! Their high taxes did not drive investors to leave! Their high unionism did not drive investors away! The right's gospel is so clearly pure lies.)"Q

Ah the power of Google to fact check. Iceland is less affected by debt then Germany and Greece because government did NOT step in, while Germany and Greece has a crisis of confidence all because of bailouts and debt. So investors might soon invest in Iceland instead.

"Iceland, the country which experienced the largest crisis in 2008 when its entire international banking system collapsed has emerged less affected by the sovereign debt crisis as the government was unable to bail the banks out. In the EU, especially in countries where sovereign debts have increased sharply due to bank bailouts, a crisis of confidence has emerged with the widening of bond yield spreads and risk insurance on credit default swaps between these countries and other EU members, most importantly Germany. While the sovereign debt increases have been most pronounced in only a few eurozone countries they have become a perceived problem for the area as a whole. In May 2011, the crisis resurfaced, concerning mostly the refinancing of Greek public debts"

"I blame right/neoliberal politicians for removing the sensible restraints on capitalism. "Q

Which means you blame government and so do I .

"If you want your hard work to yield a good life for you, you'll need more than just what you can provide for yourself; you'll need an advanced, modern society in good working order. That costs money, lots of it."Q

Actually what we need is limited cost and size, responsible government, that regulates and spends only enough to allow US the opportunity to provide for ourselves. I understand your reasoning for not trusting the money makers to give THEIR money back to society but I can't understand why you think OUR money should be invested in THIS government. We both can see the nonsense by those who still claim that cutting taxes on the rich will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Yet, you are unable to see the nonsense by those who claim we need ANOTHER stimulus and must pay more taxes in order to have a good life. Can't you see that it is not more taxes that is needed but better decisions by our leaders? The bottom-line is, we need government to provide the things we can't provide ourselves but we need to provide the rest on our own. If we depend on government for things we can do ourselves then we lose. If we can't depend on government for anything, then as a nation we are lost but as a person we would still survive because we, as individuals, matter more then government.

fred: "The funny thing about liberals and progessives is that they are only 'moral' and 'nationalistic' when it comes to the "confiscation" of other peoples sweat equity."

Whoa! Wait a minute. That's exactly why we want justice. Nothing more. The total amount of 10 years of stolen sweat equity that went into the hands of the too big to fail banksta's, price fixing futures and derivatives speculators, and the price rigging snake-oil administration. Yeah! I'd be willing to draw the line right there with those suspects and their golden parachute CEO henchmen. *Full audits and confiscation of all shady, inappropriate, double dealings profits found conspicious that in any way cost American jobs. US LAW- CLEARLY STATES THAT NO ONE REGARDLESS OF STATUS MAY BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT OR KEEP THE ASSETS ATTAINED FROM ILL-GOTTEN GAINS.

=============
THERE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO APPEARANCE OR APPROPRIATION OF ANY FORM OF "sweat equity" FROM THE TOP .01% WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE MILLIONAIRES TAX THAT WAS JUST PROPOSED.

FURTHERMORE, THIS SINGULAR ISSUE WHICH WAS APPROVED BY A OVERWHELMING 78% MAJORITY OF OUR CITIZENS- INCLUDING 53% REPUBLICANS.

LOST IN THE QUAGMIRE OF CORPORATE OWNED K STREET, FOREIGN CAUCUS, DO-NOTHING REPRESENTATIVES, ... IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN 1-2MILLION NEW JOBS, AN EQUAL SIZED REDUCTION IN TODAYS UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES- AND A REDUCTION IN EVERYONE'S TAXES. Wow! Imagine that?


DUH! SIMPLY PUT "NO SWEAT" AND "ZERO SEED MONEY" FROM THE GREEDY INTO THE ECONOMY-
YIELDS MORE OF THE SAME BARREN & BANKRUPT ASSININE PONZI SCHEME ECONOMICS AND RACE TO THE IGNOMINIOUS BOTTOM.
NO SPENDING AT THE LOWER 99% LEVEL DOESN'T STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND LEAVES EVERY DOMESTIC US BUSINESS WITH ACCELERATED DISTINCT DISADVANTAGES WITHOUT THE CUSTOMER BASE IT NEEDS TO DRAW ANY PROFITS FROM. GO FIGURE?

No "seed money" then expect to reap nothing more, then you have sow. Free Traqde will increase the deficits, devalue the fiat paper dollar is being hoarded and sooner rather than later we move to headlong toward a record breaking 33% unemployed- and yes then and only then the "elitists" will then toss all those at the bottom rung of the 2% ladder under the bus and mulch them up. ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE" IN ELITIST "VULTURE CAPITALISMS" FINAL STAGES.

THE SEVEN BIGGEST ECONOMIC LIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNbmNmoDxyo&feature=player_detailpage

the 1% that is forced to pay 70% of the bill will eventually balk and take their money elsewhere. Look around dummy. Its happening under your nose.

Like 10 freinds from a community going out for dinner, all ordering from the same menu. However when the check comes, the same one always gets stuck paying the bill. The remaining 9 split up the tip.

You weirdos are always harping about community and shared sacrifice for the common good, yet you also feel some how entitled to the largese of someone else. Eventually, that someone else who always gets stuck paying the bill is going to tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF. And leave the community. Its happening right under your nose.

Yet John in all his ill gotten wisdom somehow equates the bank robber with saver/producer. Sad.

fred and G:

fred, if we use the definition of socialism you cite, then we can hardly talk of a socialist Europe at all, including Germany. The looser definition of a socialist country as one that provides more of a cradle-to-grave public advocacy than the US does fits most Euro countries today.

G: Your list:
1. says at the outset that any country that even uses the word socialist in its name or constitution is included in the list. Hence Hitler's fascist Nazi Party could be called socialist because of its politically calculated name, National Socialist Workers' Party.
2. Including every country militarily or otherwise taken over against its sovereign will by Russia to form the USSR is not quite scrupulously honest.
3. is followed by another list of those previously mentioned countries that don't fit any typical definition of socialistic, or which were nominally socialistic during a period of revolution and transition,-and the second list pretty much wipes out the first. So the list of failed socialist/communist countries is still quite slim, despite a selective reading of Wiki.

"Which means you blame government" (for removing sensible restraints on business).

Our conversation keeps going around and around because we're using different definitions of government. When Reagan and all his imitators (is Reagan Simon?) said that government is the problem, you know they don't mean themselves. They mean the pro-social agencies and bureaucracies that deprive private entities the opportunity to withhold basic needs until sufficient profit is extracted.

Those whom Reagan was claiming provided the solution were the politicians, not non-political agencies. But it is the politicians who removed sensible restraints, after other politicians had installed them. Which politicians did damage and which politicians helped? When I speak of government I mean the concept of some measure of committed public advocacy- which I don't think you disagree with- and not any particular personalities in office. When you speak of government, since you don't say there should be no regulation or safety nets, you might be (I'm guessing) talking more about the excesses of politicians,-a legitimate concern, but one that should not too strongly influence our view of government in toto.

So I blame certain politicians, not government, for bringing back the conditions that could so easily have precipitated a second Great Depression.

“I understand your reasoning for not trusting the money makers to give THEIR money back to society but I can't understand why you think OUR money should be invested in THIS government.”

“Back to society” and “invested in this government” are the same thing. Unless you have an idea for some outside-of-government manager/facilitator?

"Eventually, that someone else who always gets stuck paying the bill..."-fred

There is such a thing as scale. If these ten friends you talk about consist of nine part-time, minimum-wage workers, and one billionaire, the entire bill is not even pocket change for the billionaire, while the bill may as well be a gazillion dollars for the nine others. I could not conceive of a billionaire who would feel put out for paying such a trivial bill.

That oft-cited "70%' of tax revenue does not mean a 70% tax rate for the wealthy, but only shows the need to appreciate scale. It says that some small percentage of the income of billionaires is going to provide more revenue than pretty much the same tax rate on the pitiful income of even millions of under-employed, poorly-paid workers.

Nice one Q.

Again a dishonest answer from a dishonest human being.

Do you even have a clue?

Oh the folly!

Again an answer you don't like, you mean. Show me where it's dishonest.

Its that all or nothing thinking.Black/white. Us/them. Have/have not. That is dishonest thinking/dogma on your part. There can be zero to almost no consensus with a person of your thought pattern

We could go on and on about who is sitting at the table and their likley economic background. Thats irrelevent. We could make it 9 welfare queens and one minimum wage worker with a credit card, but you'd turn that around too.

The way you think is detrimental. Your poor wife and family must have suffered tremendouly from living with someone who always has to be right.

A community cannot exist and or survive without shared responsibility. Scale is the least of the problem.

How has your little community thrived Mr. Q?

"When Reagan and all his imitators (is Reagan Simon?) said that government is the problem, you know they don't mean themselves. They mean the pro-social agencies and bureaucracies that deprive private entities the opportunity to withhold basic needs until sufficient profit is extracted." Mike Q


Mike Q, I applaud you on putting across a concise, articulate and consistent message. That message is that without government, powerful individuals will take advantage of the weak, that there will be a feeding frenzy where only the powerful sharks survive. So that no matter how flawed government is, it is better then the wild west alternative. And that government itself is not the problem but those that do the bidding of the powerful are. Am I right with my assessment? If you believe that way because of what you were told or taught by someone else, then that is a Simon Sez answer. If you believe that way because you know in your heart and experience that it is truth, then your are a thinking individual.

So who is Simon? It is anyone with an agenda that cannot convert the masses based on truth, so they move the line between good and evil, between right and wrong to make it fit with their ideology. In other words, Simon is a liar who knows he is lying to convince and convert the masses. Simon exists on both the Right and the Left.

Examples of Simon:

1) If you don't agree with Obamacare, then you rather see people die.
2) If you don't agree with the Iraq War, you are not Patriotic.
3) If you don't agree with every US conflict, then you are weak on defense and invite terrorism.
4) If you don't believe in Global warming, then you don't care about this planet.
5) If you don't back the Union in every circumstance, then you don't care about the working stiff.
6) If you don't speak up against Wall street, then you don't care about the 99% who are suffering.
7) If you don't cut taxes on the rich, then jobs won't be created.
8) If you don't raise taxes on the rich, then government can't help you.
9) If you don't agree with open borders, then you are a Racist.

I can go on and on. The point is there is no truth in these statements. The truth lies somewhere in the middle but they are presented in a way to sway you into to their definition of right and wrong. Don't be beguiled by their lies. Who is Simon? It is the media, some politicians, some corporations, some advocates, some leaders and some individuals.

fred:

"We could go on and on about who is sitting at the table and their likely economic background. That's irrelevant."

If the point of the dinner story is that the one who pays the bill will balk and walk out, then who is at the table has everything to do with whether this happens or not.

"You weirdos are always harping about community and shared sacrifice for the common good"....And then "A community cannot exist and or survive without shared responsibility."

I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but I know I usually have no idea what you're saying. I don't know if you're profound or if my literal mind just can't track the path you take from point A to B.

G: As you so often manage to do with insight and precision, you summed up part of my view of government. I add to your summary the less nannyish and more handymanish function of government,-that of civilization-builder. Infrastructure, Apollo Projects, nipping epidemics in the bud, sponsoring the development of the internet, etc. All the independent individualistic entrepreneurial spirit in the world has an unnecessarily harder time in a weakly supported physical environment.

Dang. I need to get my own computer; gotta give it up now for my wife's use.

Bingo!!!

MikeG has got it!!!

Sorry I haven't been able to convey the contrived ambiquitys within those nuances that you seem to have known all along. THANKS A MILLION GOES TO MIKE Q ABD HIS MAGNIFICENT EYE OPENING ELOQUENCE.
Now if you are willing go back and research DR and his agendas, The Scrub family and theirs, Greenspan and his direct derision of Brooksley Borne's presentations of widespread STOCK FRAUD & OUT OF CONTROL LEVERAGING prior to 2005's deregulation.
Te Goldman Sachs FED siphoning apparatus.
The Carlyle Groups and Halliburtons involvement in getting us tied up with their evil associates. {Saddam w/WMD, the TaLIBAN, oSAMA, THE Pakistani ISI, Mushareff, Chalabi, Iran/Contra etc]. This many faux pas, could never be just chalked up as unfortunate coincidence.
Can it?

I'll stop right here.
Deliberate, calculated, liars that have directly affected the serenity of the lives of millions of families everywhere in the world. How would you like to have these willful and nefarious characters defined?
Good because they made money for their stockholders? Bad because they always took full advantage of their power to destroy millions of innocent lives to do it?
As part of reference Iran/Contra was integral in the spread of the crack epidemic that destroyed millions of families right here at home. Yikes! I almost left out Scrub family partner in crime Noriega.

IF WAR IS A RACKET! WHAT IS GOING TO WAR ON FALSIFIED PRETENSES?

In Texas one feeble minded governor, with a long track record of supporting the operations of mass murderers had the power over life and death of presumed killers of single persons. Without hesitation even when new evidence seemed to prove otherwise- he choose to exercise the "death" option. Hmmmmmmmmm!

FACTS!!! NOT FICTION.

Bank Transfer Day: A Protest With Your Money
by Brian O'Connell
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
tweet180EmailPrintprovided by


Occupy Wall Street has dominated headlines for the past few weeks, with advocates and critics jaw-boning over whether it was government or Wall Street that fueled the financial crisis (here's a vote for both).

But even critics can't argue about the growth prospects of the "occupations" taking place in urban centers across the U.S. Now comes an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street that takes aim at banks where it hurts them most — in their vaults.

The social uprising — called "Bank Transfer Day" — encourages bank customers to take their cash out of big banks and put it in smaller banks and credit unions instead. The movement is ostensibly in response to aggressive fees institutions are rolling out to recover profits lost from new financial regulations, notably Bank of America's (BAC - News) decision to stick debit card users with a $5 monthly fee and Wells Fargo's (WFC - News) $3 test of the same.

On the movement's Facebook page, protest organizers say that, even with new government regulations in place to keep banks in check, they're still making out like bandits. For example:

• With the Durbin Amendment in effect, banks will still make 19 cents profit per processed transaction.

• The average consumer uses his or her debit card 24 times per month.

• Without the additional fee, Bank of America stands to turn a $3.3 billion annual profit from its 59 million customers' debit card transactions.

Here's an explanation from the organizers of Bank Transfer Day, straight from the group's Facebook page:

"Together we can ensure that these banking institutions will always remember the 5th of November!! If the 99% removes our funds from the major banking institutions on or by this date, we will send a clear message and give the 1% a taste of the fear that we experience every day when we aren't able to pay for our rent, food, medication, utilities, student loans, etc."

As of Oct. 10, the group's organizers say 6,500 Americans have already signed up in support of the event. How many of those consumers will actually yank their deposits from big banks is an open-ended question that won't be answered until Nov. 5, if at all.

But the protest won't be going away. Consumers who want to join in only have to take three simple steps, organizers say:

• Open an account with a credit union.

• Transfer your funds to the account (online or in person) by Nov. 5.

• Follow your bank's procedures to close your account.

Bank Transfer Day organizers are not only hoping to piggyback the media interest on Occupy Wall Street. There's a deeper well of consumer dissatisfaction that the group wants to tap into — that "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore" frustration, immortalized in the 1976 film Network.

Six thousand, five hundred bank transfers won't cut it, even though the movement still seems to be growing. In the way they treat customers, big banks could keep those numbers where they, shrink them — or cause them to grow into something truly significant.

___
More from MainStreet.com:

• How to Quit Your Bank

• The Best Credit Cards With No Annual Fees

• Here's How to Get Around New Debit Card Fees

I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but I know I usually have no idea what you're saying. I don't know if you're profound or if my literal mind just can't track the path you take from point A to B.- Q

Did anybody else get it? -fred

"I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but I know I usually have no idea what you're saying. I don't know if you're profound or if my literal mind just can't track the path you take from point A to B." Mike Q

Mike, I think I understand Fred's point and can help to explain. First let me ask you a question. Think about the answer before reading what I perceive your responsive will be.

Question:

What comes to your mind when someone identifies themselves as "conservative principled" or "individualistic"?

Answer:

Is it someone that is self centered? Not willing to share? Not wanting to be part of the team? If so, then you have been swayed by progressive "Simons" and that may explain why you don't understand. The truth is actually the opposite.

In Fred's scenario of 10 people out to dinner, I understand the logic behind your response. Perhaps most progressive minded people would respond the same way but with my Independent individual way of thinking, I would never formulate that kind of reply. If I was one of the 10, I would be thinking, "Can I afford to pay for my meal?" "If I chip in, what if I don't have enough money?" "If I have to borrow money that would be unfair to the rest of my friends."

You see the "I" is not about how "I" can get over or how "I" can get someone else to pay but it means "I" must be responsible for myself. It seems as though the progressive or Liberal minded person thinks differently when it comes time to pay the bill. Like "Who at the table is a millionaire or a billionaire" or "who at he table has the most money" they should pay. And if nobody is rich and everybody had the same amount of money, then the progressive thought would be, "we should all split the bill up evenly,"I" will only pay my fair share." The self sacrificing attitude seems predominate with the individual minded person. When all individuals work hard at being responsible for ourselves, then we form a strong alliance, a team that can produce almost anything.

MikeG: re: Liberals and progressives. No, that's not it at all.

Liberals and progressives look at their finances in the following manner. First, consider whether of not it is wise to usurp their limited spending capital on a superfluous "feel good" dinner at a cuisine, when that money could be spent more wisely on a festive banquet- if everyone that was in attendence at the ala carte meet contributed in kind with either the same monetary amount or a sampling of their own cooking or by musical and comedic entertainment where the poor who have learned by their experiences to grin and bear it shine brightly.

NOW THAT'S A FEAST WORTH MORE THEN THE PRICE OF ADMISSION.

... AGAIN PROVING THAT NEITHER CONSERVATIVES, MILLIONAIRES, NOR INDIVIDUALISTS HAVE CORNERED THE ENTIRE MARKET ON INDUSTRIOUS AND PRACTICAL IDEAS.
When there's a "will" ther will always be a way to achieve-
...and not everything that is worthwhile, needs to be based solely on self-profit, or self importance models.

Ya think?

"First, consider whether of not it is wise to usurp their limited spending capital on a superfluous "feel good" dinner at a cuisine, when that money could be spent more wisely on a festive banquet-... where the poor who have learned by their experiences to grin and bear it shine brightly."John

John, limited wise spending of money and helping one another to ultimately benefit all? I firmly believe in that.
John, I don't know you sound like a closet Conservative to me! As opposed to keep spending money because debt don't matter and if we fall further in debt, then ask more from everybody. I thought that was progressive? Whatever we call that irresponsible attitude is what I don't agree with. I saw it in Bush and I see it in Obama. Bush was not a conservative economically.

"and not everything that is worthwhile, needs to be based solely on self-profit, or self importance models." -John

Absolutely! Sacrificing to help Community, family and friends is the ultimate self profit. Good thinking!

G:

Thoughtful as always, and patient, in your ten at the table comment.

I believe that most people in the situation of the nine would chafe at being unable to pay their parts of the bill. That urge is the result of socialization, which means being raised to be a member of a society. People of all walks of life are raised by creatures called parents, beings who put aside political ideology when parenting. Caring teachers contribute to this socialization to an impressive degree. And we continue to learn from our experiences after we go out on our own.

You see the poor person at the table who aches to be "responsible" as an independent individual, a responsible citizen, someone who is part of "a strong alliance, a team that can produce almost anything." I see that same person, who feels awful about not doing his part, as someone who exemplifies communal ethics, a practical and moral code that- lo and behold- makes "a strong alliance." You and I are probably both talking about healthy socialization, but are calling it different things.

"You and I are probably both talking about healthy socialization, but are calling it different things." Mike Q

Mike, I suppose you are right and that is where we do agree. Decent people from both the Left and the Right share the same principles in helping one another and being responsible for one another. Yet both sides have aspects that I don't agree with. Those who are capable and take responsibility for themselves and others I respect so much more then those who blame others or expect them to take responsibility. And those that deceive in order to gain an advantage, I have no respect at all.

So for example, when Reagan says, "the problem is government", being himself the leader of government, I look at that as responsible behavior. When Obama the leader of government says, "the rich must pay their fair share" I look at that as telling someone else to pay the bill. Consider a CEO who decides to take a cut of his pay in order to prevent a lower paid employee from losing their job, compared to OWS demanding he cut his pay. OWS does not inspire me to join their cause but the CEO cutting his pay would inspire me to buy his product. It is ALL about controlling what is in our power to control and being responsible for ourselves and others.

Lastly, there are those I have no respect for, the deceiver. A billionaire with the means to effect change on his own, who can open a company and hire only Americans in America and pay a decent wage or could donate large sums of money, instead he says,"raise my taxes." In my view, he is really saying, even though I can make a difference, I don't want to take responsibility, I want my buddies to chip in but I want to look like I care. The Hollywood Left, the elite Left and the Right establishment politicians fit this category. Do you understand? Because if you do, then you will understand how Left and Right can become more united, instead of the divided way we are today.

We're agreeing on too many items, so I have to pick at something. (Just kidding).

"A billionaire...could donate large sums of money, instead he says,'raise my taxes.'"

The donor is a philanthropist, and there are some, but not enough to make a significant difference throughout the country, and his efforts are as often as not haphazard or eccentric or exclusionary or in some other way almost a waste of his money. It looks to me that the people who say that anyone could volunteer to pay more taxes on his own are the same people who are most averse to paying taxes at all, and are the same people who are most convinced that they are being abused by lowlifes who pay little if anything. It's fred's ten diner feeling. It's presented as a serious proposition, but with the full expectation that people will dismiss it out of hand, while the proposition's existance hopefully pre-empts any mandatory tax increase.

That's as far as I can get; gotta give up the computer for now.

(She's on the phone).

...pre-empts any mandatory tax increase.

So the wealthy who say "raise my taxes" are believers in a well-funded effort to build a civilization with healthy people in it, and who know it'll never happen if it's left up to volunteers. So, yes, they want others to chip in also, as you say, but I believe for the good of the country.

Saying that making civic-mindedness mandatory is an assault on freedom sours the smell of the word for me. It's why I kept asking what freedom means to you. Freedom from the ties that bind sounds to me more like license,-irresponsible.

Th- th- th- that's all, folks. (For now).

Theres trouble in River City when ones political ideology trumps the moral code.

Marxist mobocracy:

Let them protest and rage - it lays the groundwork for GOP domination

October 14, 2011

Abraham Lincoln rightly denounced the "mobocratic spirit." James Madison considered it the sa- cred duty of government to protect property rights from the violent whims of the mob: "That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."

Lincoln and Madison would not have looked kindly upon the pro-redistributionist political street theater under way in urine- and garbage-saturated urban parks across the nation.

In an insult to the intelligence of the American people, the leaders of "Occupy Wall Street" piously claim that their movement is in the best traditions of nonviolent protest.

These class warriors are lying. The whole idea of these mass protests is to provoke the police and cause mass arrests, which the organizers can then use for propaganda purposes.

This exercise in Marxist mobocracy began on Sept. 17 in Lower Manhattan as the "U.S. Day of Rage." This is a more honest moniker because it makes clear that the demonstrators are the polar opposite of the Tea Party movement, which seeks to protect America's economic freedoms from the statist onslaught of the Obama administration. The leftist mob wants a radical transformation of American society in which government is expanded exponentially.

Occupy Wall Street is led by New York's Working Families party, a front group for ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO and street-thug battalions from the various neo-communist organizations such as National People's Action and Democratic Socialists of America. Paid rent-a-mobs from the Working Families Party, which isn't even recognized in the District of Columbia, even paid a visit to the Washington Marriott at Metro Center in the nation's capital on Wednesday.

Although violence has been sporadic at the various "occupations" so far, mass violence is inevitable. This is what radicals want. What else could possibly be the end result of thousands of angry activists camping out for weeks without food and sanitation?

As the Pajamas Media website reported, a recent speaker at a parallel demonstration in Los Angeles gave away the game and unexpectedly injected clarity into the debate.

The man, apparently from India, rejected nonviolence and praised the bloody guillotines that worked overtime during the French Reign of Terror. "Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us," said the aspiring Robespierre. "The bourgeoisie won't go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!" the speaker said to applause from the mob.

"Rules for Radicals" author and leftist icon Saul Alinsky agreed that nonviolence is of limited usefulness when trying to usher in a new era of socialism. As I note in my new book, "Subversion Inc.," he argued in his organizing opus that there is no reason to make "a special religion of nonviolence." In colonial India, he said, Gandhi's approach was simply "the best tactic for its time and place."

The mob actions Alinsky advocated and carried out have always been the antithesis of the American way of doing things. Americans reject lynch mobs and other forms of mob rule.

Conservative columnist George F. Will acknowledged as much on ABC's "This Week With Christiane Amanpour."

Mr. Will said he wants the Occupy Wall Street protests to continue and get even more publicity: "I think they do represent the intellectual spirit of the American left, but also I remember the 1960s. We had four years of demonstrations like this [that] led up to 1968, when the Nixon/Wallace vote was 57 percent - the country reacting against demonstrators, and Republicans went on to win five of the next six presidential elections."

Maybe there is hope for America, after all.

Thank you, Occupy Wall Street.

Gerald Celente: Internet nuke bomb waiting to go off / Jan 10, 2011
Gerald Celente, the founder of the Trends Research Institute, believes that the Internet will empower the youth of the world to unite to start a revolution that will overthrow the existing deadlocked elitist establishment. He predicts that in 2011 every citizen is going to realize that the Great Recession the world has been living through is actually a Great Depression, because the American establishment is "running out of schemes."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO45VBO6Swo&NR=1

"The donor is a philanthropist, and there are some, but not enough to make a significant difference...It looks to me that the people who say that anyone could volunteer to pay more taxes on his own are the same people who are most averse to paying taxes at all...That's as far as I can get; gotta give up the computer for now." Mike Q


Mike Q, doesn't your wife understand what we are trying to accomplish and the importance of our posting here?..LOL. My wife says I am obsessed and I think she is right but I can't help thinking that if a band of only 7 or 8 regulars posting on RNN can't be united, then how can we expect our nation, much less the world to be? I suppose, foolishly somehow I think that if we can understand each other and believe in the same goals then the rest of the world can too. Over 2yrs of posting and hoping and so I continue...

I repeat my statement from my previous post- "It is ALL about controlling what is in our power to control and being responsible for ourselves and others".

So your ideology or way of thinking, is concerned with getting enough Billionaires (OTHERS) to chip in, in order to make a difference in society and my ideology is simple concerned with how much I can contribute. My moral code searches my heart to determine if I can or should contribute more then my fair share and if the answer is yes, then I simply would. As Fred implies, our biggest difference here is I trust the moral code of each individual over political ideology. If the only way to pay the restaurant bill is to bring along a rich friend or go beyond what each of us feels is our fair share for a normal meal, then maybe the restaurant is too expensive and we have to send a message(TP)to the owners(politicians in charge).

So as far as the Billionaire, you think he is honest because he knows he cannot make a difference by himself and I think he is a liar because if he wanted to pay more taxes he simply would, he does not need to tell government to tax him more. The honest answer would be, "I believe in paying more taxes so I WILL, I would also like to see other wealthy people do the same". Instead he says "tax me more" while doing nothing himself and that is the lie.

"Saying that making civic-mindedness mandatory is an assault on freedom sours the smell of the word for me. It's why I kept asking what freedom means to you. Freedom from the ties that bind sounds to me more like license,-irresponsible." Q

Mike, ponder this quote:

"Perfect freedom is reserved for the man who lives by his own work and in that work does what he wants to do" R.G. Collingwood

Collingwood does not indicate by his quote what "his own work"is. That is because to define freedom, it does not matter. So freedom is the ability to do our own work and if our moral code is right, then our own work will be a benefit to society. If not, then it will be a detriment. The way to improve society is by improving ones moral code, like proper upbringing, education, religion and awareness. Government protection as opposed to government regulation of ones morality

Fred is the best at explaining something in one sentence that takes me 6 paragraphs and that is, political ideology will never be accepted in society as a means to change ones "own work" or to take a priority over ones own religion or ones own moral code.