Occupy Wall Street (2 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical.

Is this the same logic as the argument that wealthy pro-taxes advocates are hypocrites unless they're voluntarily paying extra taxes? I didn't think Maurile was one of those types.

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I wish there was more of a discussion of global data since it mostly shows that the before tax and transfers inequality has been growing pretty evenly across developed nations. It is the after tax and transfer figures where the US is an outlier.

 

[guderian]

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I don't think the potshots at liberals are really helping your argument. There are plenty of rich liberals that argue for policies that are against their own self-interests. And there are plenty of rich conservatives that argue for self-serving policies.I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction. Honestly that criticism can be leveled at any attempts at social welfare in this country.

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--that's why they're hypocrites. They only want wealth forcibly redistributed downward to them.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

I think that if you're making $20K a year, or even $60K, you can do a lot more to alleviate global poverty by advocating for policies than you can by, say, living in squalor and giving half your income to charity.

 

[guderian]

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical.

Is this the same logic as the argument that wealthy pro-taxes advocates are hypocrites unless they're voluntarily paying extra taxes? I didn't think Maurile was one of those types.

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I wish there was more of a discussion of global data since it mostly shows that the before tax and transfers inequality has been growing pretty evenly across developed nations. It is the after tax and transfer figures where the US is an outlier.

Since you have ready access to the data, what income percentile would a US college graduate be on a worldwide basis--not just comparing it to other developed countries?

 

[guderian]

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

I think that if you're making $20K a year, or even $60K, you can do a lot more to alleviate global poverty by advocating for policies than you can by, say, living in squalor and giving half your income to charity.

Probably so, but they don't seem to be as concerned about global poverty as they do about having wealth redistributed to themselves.

 

[Slapdash]

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical.

Is this the same logic as the argument that wealthy pro-taxes advocates are hypocrites unless they're voluntarily paying extra taxes? I didn't think Maurile was one of those types.

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I wish there was more of a discussion of global data since it mostly shows that the before tax and transfers inequality has been growing pretty evenly across developed nations. It is the after tax and transfer figures where the US is an outlier.

Since you have ready access to the data, what income percentile would a US college graduate be on a worldwide basis--not just comparing it to other developed countries?

Not all that ready, just a quick googler of things seen in the past. But indirectly looking at a couple of different things assuming 27K and looking roughly at US and some international data charts between 90% and 95% seems reasonable. About equivalent to the average citizen income in New Zealand.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

I think that if you're making $20K a year, or even $60K, you can do a lot more to alleviate global poverty by advocating for policies than you can by, say, living in squalor and giving half your income to charity.

Probably so, but they don't seem to be as concerned about global poverty as they do about having wealth redistributed to themselves.

Well, that's partly a result of wealth being concentrated in the hands of so few people. Virtually anybody in this country that advocates for wealth redistribution can be accused of self-interest.

 

[bueno]

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

I think that if you're making $20K a year, or even $60K, you can do a lot more to alleviate global poverty by advocating for policies than you can by, say, living in squalor and giving half your income to charity.

Probably so, but they don't seem to be as concerned about global poverty as they do about having wealth redistributed to themselves.

Well, that's partly a result of wealth being concentrated in the hands of so few people. Virtually anybody in this country that advocates for wealth redistribution can be accused of self-interest.

And the accuser would be right. We need to concentrate more on providing better opportunity than on stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

 

[guderian]

Not all that ready, just a quick googler of things seen in the past. But indirectly looking at a couple of different things assuming 27K and looking roughly at US and some international data charts between 90% and 95% seems reasonable. About equivalent to the average citizen income in New Zealand.

That's even higher than I thought it would be. So, the '99%' would be in the top 5-10% of world income. Interesting quote from that last link..."Comparing between countries we see that the poorest 5% of Americans are among the richest people in the world (richer than nearly 70% of other people in the world)." Redistribute.

 

[guderian]

Again, you're talking about "arguing for policies" and "politics". If they're truly concerned about the well being of humanity, they don't need policies to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate.

I think that if you're making $20K a year, or even $60K, you can do a lot more to alleviate global poverty by advocating for policies than you can by, say, living in squalor and giving half your income to charity.

Probably so, but they don't seem to be as concerned about global poverty as they do about having wealth redistributed to themselves.

Well, that's partly a result of wealth being concentrated in the hands of so few people. Virtually anybody in this country that advocates for wealth redistribution can be accused of self-interest.

It's only in self-interest if you're advocating that it be redistributed to yourself--which is pretty much what OWS is about and circles back 'round to the hypocrisy angle.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

It's only in self-interest if you're advocating that it be redistributed to yourself--which is pretty much what OWS is about and circles back 'round to the hypocrisy angle.

I guess I'm not understanding why it's hypocritical for people to protest in an attempt to make their lives better in a system they view as unfair. How would you distinguish this from, say the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 60s? "They're just protesting because they want to sit in the front of the bus!"

 

[David Dodds]

I wish the protestors would concentrate more on these themes:

http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDZC507SXKX01-53FDT6STR4PRVU9B7CRTDL62J0

 

[bueno]

I wish the protestors would concentrate more on these themes:

http://news.business...RVU9B7CRTDL62J0

The problem is that Paulson broke no laws. He should be hung, drawn and quartered anyway, but this just shows that the problem is in Washington and with quasi-government corporations which should be banished, rather than with Wall Street.

 

[guderian]

It's only in self-interest if you're advocating that it be redistributed to yourself--which is pretty much what OWS is about and circles back 'round to the hypocrisy angle.

I guess I'm not understanding why it's hypocritical for people to protest in an attempt to make their lives better in a system they view as unfair. How would you distinguish this from, say the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 60s? "They're just protesting because they want to sit in the front of the bus!"

It's hypocritical largely because of the language they use and where they draw the lines for 'wealth' and 'needy'. They accuse people of greed while essentially lobbying for more money for themselves. They lecture about humanity, equality, "buying American" and looking our for your fellow man; but they really mean "look out for me" and "make me equal" because if they were truly concerned about equality they wouldn't distinguish between Americans and poor throughout the world. They may throw a bone to the poor in Africa or India, but make no mistake that the goal of these protests is not about equality, but economic self-interest. In my opinion, that makes them just as greedy and self-interested as the people they protest against.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

It's only in self-interest if you're advocating that it be redistributed to yourself--which is pretty much what OWS is about and circles back 'round to the hypocrisy angle.

I guess I'm not understanding why it's hypocritical for people to protest in an attempt to make their lives better in a system they view as unfair. How would you distinguish this from, say the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 60s? "They're just protesting because they want to sit in the front of the bus!"

It's hypocritical largely because of the language they use and where they draw the lines for 'wealth' and 'needy'. They accuse people of greed while essentially lobbying for more money for themselves. They lecture about humanity, equality, "buying American" and looking our for your fellow man; but they really mean "look out for me" and "make me equal" because if they were truly concerned about equality they wouldn't distinguish between Americans and poor throughout the world. They may throw a bone to the poor in Africa or India, but make no mistake that the goal of these protests is not about equality, but economic self-interest. In my opinion, that makes them just as greedy and self-interested as the people they protest against.

This is confusing, but maybe it's because the Occupy movement is confusing. I don't see how the "greedy and self-interested" stuff intersects with the "hypocritical" stuff. Weren't a bunch of them complaining that they needed student loans and jobs and stuff? That strikes me as self-interested but I don't see how it's hypocritical.

 

[guderian]

It's only in self-interest if you're advocating that it be redistributed to yourself--which is pretty much what OWS is about and circles back 'round to the hypocrisy angle.

I guess I'm not understanding why it's hypocritical for people to protest in an attempt to make their lives better in a system they view as unfair. How would you distinguish this from, say the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 60s? "They're just protesting because they want to sit in the front of the bus!"

It's hypocritical largely because of the language they use and where they draw the lines for 'wealth' and 'needy'. They accuse people of greed while essentially lobbying for more money for themselves. They lecture about humanity, equality, "buying American" and looking our for your fellow man; but they really mean "look out for me" and "make me equal" because if they were truly concerned about equality they wouldn't distinguish between Americans and poor throughout the world. They may throw a bone to the poor in Africa or India, but make no mistake that the goal of these protests is not about equality, but economic self-interest. In my opinion, that makes them just as greedy and self-interested as the people they protest against.

This is confusing, but maybe it's because the Occupy movement is confusing. I don't see how the "greedy and self-interested" stuff intersects with the "hypocritical" stuff. Weren't a bunch of them complaining that they needed student loans and jobs and stuff? That strikes me as self-interested but I don't see how it's hypocritical.

"You're greedy and have too much money--give me some." To me that's hypocrisy because they're just as driven by greed. Since you mentioned education that's another example of the greed they accuse others of. Their education policy seems to be 'forgive the student loans I took out'. How does that address anything but putting more money in their pockets? If they truly want income equality, then one of their primary goals should be addressing the failure of the K-12 public school system in the US. Yet that's another issue that doesn't seem to be very high on their list of priorities.

 

[Mello]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all unless you think we should all be under one world government or some nonsense. We are competing with other nations or at least we should be. It IS America's wealth and many believe the way it is being distributed is unfair to the vast majority of Americans. People in Zambia need to fix their own country.

Actually, it is Warren Buffet's wealth, not America's.

Actually, it's America's.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

I haven't heard any of the Occupy Wall Street types say it's American wealth or that they oppose humanitarian aid to other countries. I'm sure that some of them feel that way but I don't know if it's widely shared.

What I find distasteful is not just that the OWSers are clamoring for other people's income to be redistributed to poor Americans without clamoring for their own income to be redistributed to poor foreigners. I understand tackling one issue at a time.It's more the us-against-them mindset signaled by referring to people as "the 1 percent" or "the 99 percent." It smacks not only of hypocrisy, but of scapegoating, envy, and hate-mongering.

It's one thing to criticize the Koch brothers or the CEO of Goldman Sachs for having too much power or influence; but most individuals making up the 1% are not particularly powerful or influential, and they share no blame for stuff the OWSers might legitimately complain about. To lump all rich people together as "the 1%," and then complain that the 1% is exploiting the 99%, is to mistake the fact that most influential people are wealthy for the falsehood that most wealthy people are influential: it is an attack on every rich guy just for being rich.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

And if this is a movement limited to the redistribution of wealth in the good ol' U.S. of A, why are they following the marching orders of Canadian-owned AdBusters?

 

[Tiny Dancer]

What I find distasteful is not just that the OWSers are clamoring for other people's income to be redistributed to poor Americans without clamoring for their own income to be redistributed to poor foreigners. I understand tackling one issue at a time.

It's more the us-against-them mindset signaled by referring to people as "the 1 percent" or "the 99 percent." It smacks not only of hypocrisy, but of scapegoating, envy, and hate-mongering.

It's one thing to criticize the Koch brothers or the CEO of Goldman Sachs for having too much power or influence; but most individuals comprising the 1% are not particularly powerful or influential, and they share no blame for stuff the OWSers might legitimately complain about. To lump all rich people together as "the 1%," and then complain that the 1% is exploiting the 99%, is to mistake the fact that most influential people are wealthy for the falsehood that most wealthy people are influential: it is an attack on every rich guy just for being rich.

The "1%" thing is catchy and serves the purpose of publicizing how imbalanced the wealth distribution in this country is. And at least that part of the movement seems to be successful -- there has been a lot more media attention paid to wealth inequality over the last few months than there had been before this whole thing started. Early in this thread somebody posted a survey that had been done where people severely underestimated how much of the country's wealth was possessed by the top 1%. Ideally, talking about "the 1%" has allowed the facts to become more recognized. Good information seems to be an important prerequisite to achieving good public policy.And I always viewed the whole 99% thing as more inclusive than exclusive. 99% is a pretty big number.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction.

I completely agree. If the original folks who got the OWS movement going had gone about it by telling everyone the point was to get three million rich Americans to stop selfishly hoarding all that wealth and spread it around to three hundred million Guatemalans and Bangladeshis and so on who needed it more, I imagine their meme would have gotten very little traction with the public.In other words, the OWS movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground by favoring redistribution to truly poor people; it got off the ground only by favoring redistribution to its supporters.

 

[humpback]

I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction. Honestly that criticism can be leveled at any attempts at social welfare in this country.

Are you seriously trying to say that the reason OWS isn't clamoring for global redistribution is because it's less likely to get any sort of political traction?

I think global redistribution of wealth isn't part of the political conversation in this country. The Occupy movement reflects that.

Is that a "yes"? Do you think they really want to distribute their wealth to the worlds poor but settled on getting the 1%'s wealth distributed to themselves because they didn't want to go too far?

 

[Statorama]

Back in the old days you worked your ### off to get to be part of the 1%. These days you want it given to you.

 

[KiddLattimer]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

Excellent posting. Selling off their iPads and iPods would feed a family in Africa for a year.

Buying their iPads and iPods helps feed families in China.

I don't disagree--that's the very nature of capitalism that many of them are protesting. I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Keeping it closer to home, I found it very hypocritical when many in the OWS group were getting frustrated that the homeless were coming over to get some of the food they were giving out. Forget the regular joe who just lost his job... the homeless are the ones that need the most help.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Anonymous and Team Poison are joining the cause

Anonymous and Team Poison Join Forces For OpRobinHood to Target Banks and Give to Charities

Two hacking groups, Anonymous and Team Poison, have joined forces to take on the banks, steal money and donate it to charities and protests. Reclaiming the "99 per cent's money back".

Apparently the plan is to swipe money from stolen credit card and bank details and donate it to charities and protest movements:

"Operation Robin Hood is going to return the money to those who have been cheated by our system and most importantly to those hurt by our banks. Operation Robin Hood will take credit cards and donate to the 99 per cent as well as various charities around the globe."

PoisAnon is relying on the fact that the banks will reimburse stolen cash from victim's credit cards, which is probably a safe bet, but would backfire horribly if that doesn't actually happen. Both hacker teams have had success in the past hacking into banks and are confident they can do it again. The thought of internet Robin Hoods running around helping out the poor is a noble proposition, but I can't see this not impacting your average Joe on the street. The money they intend to steal has to come from somewhere and almost everything ends up landing with the customer

 

[guderian]

I don't recall the Tea Party getting sweet offers like this...

Appeasing the Occupiers

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa reportedly offered the occupiers a 10,000-square-foot office space, a patch of farmland to garden and housing for the homeless if the protesters vacated the City Hall lawn but the protesters rejected the offer.

Link

 

[Mello]

And if this is a movement limited to the redistribution of wealth in the good ol' U.S. of A, why are they following the marching orders of Canadian-owned AdBusters?

If they were following the marching orders of AdBusters, they would have come up with one demand and rallied around it. That was their original idea. AdBusters made the initial call to occupy, but it has long since gone beyond their control.

 

[Rayderr]

Anonymous and Team Poison are joining the cause

Anonymous and Team Poison Join Forces For OpRobinHood to Target Banks and Give to Charities

Two hacking groups, Anonymous and Team Poison, have joined forces to take on the banks, steal money and donate it to charities and protests. Reclaiming the "99 per cent's money back".

Apparently the plan is to swipe money from stolen credit card and bank details and donate it to charities and protest movements:

"Operation Robin Hood is going to return the money to those who have been cheated by our system and most importantly to those hurt by our banks. Operation Robin Hood will take credit cards and donate to the 99 per cent as well as various charities around the globe."

PoisAnon is relying on the fact that the banks will reimburse stolen cash from victim's credit cards, which is probably a safe bet, but would backfire horribly if that doesn't actually happen. Both hacker teams have had success in the past hacking into banks and are confident they can do it again. The thought of internet Robin Hoods running around helping out the poor is a noble proposition, but I can't see this not impacting your average Joe on the street. The money they intend to steal has to come from somewhere and almost everything ends up landing with the customer

Well luckily, dealing with stolen credit card numbers is a quick and painless process for customers.

 

[Jackstraw]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

Excellent posting. Selling off their iPads and iPods would feed a family in Africa for a year.

Buying their iPads and iPods helps feed families in China.

I don't disagree--that's the very nature of capitalism that many of them are protesting. I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Logical fallacyIrrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.

Example

Argument: American citizens are rich in comparison with the rest of the world population so American citizens have no standing to complain about relative income inequality of other Amricans.

Problem: Income inequality can still be problamatic regardless of the condition of other countries in the world.

 

[Jackstraw]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.c...E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yes. Never.

 

[Jackstraw]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.c...E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yes. Never.

We'd still be talking deficit.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.c...E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yes. Never.

We'd still be talking deficit.

Correct. There is absolutely nothing else in the whole realm of possibility, other than the occupy movement, that would have netted this result.

 

[ericttspikes]

Back in the old days you worked your ### off to get to be part of the 1%. These days you want it given to you.

I think they made a movie about that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST By Richard CowanWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

 

[ericttspikes]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST By Richard CowanWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

Paying for it is another story....

 

[Jackstraw]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST By Richard CowanWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

I believe the dialogue has been substantially affected by the OWS movement. How much did you here in mainstream media about income inequality pre OWS? VERY little. Of course reasonable people can disagree but I think Republicans have become much more attuned to the issue. We got a 80 page thread talking about the issue whereas it had come up relatively rarely before. That's been happening all across the country in various venues. 99% as a metaphor is here to stay. I seriously don't think it gets passed without OWS. We'd be talking about how the american people need more pain in order for recovery to take place. Or something like that. I really don't get shrinking the economy to recovery but that seems to be the general republican strategy.

 

[Rayderr]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

I believe the dialogue has been substantially affected by the OWS movement. How much did you here in mainstream media about income inequality pre OWS? VERY little. Of course reasonable people can disagree but I think Republicans have become much more attuned to the issue. We got a 80 page thread talking about the issue whereas it had come up relatively rarely before. That's been happening all across the country in various venues. 99% as a metaphor is here to stay.

I seriously don't think it gets passed without OWS. We'd be talking about how the american people need more pain in order for recovery to take place. Or something like that. I really don't get shrinking the economy to recovery but that seems to be the general republican strategy.

Warren Buffet made his wonderful statement about how he should pay more in taxes on August 15. That got tons of play in the mainstream media. OWS didn't start until a month later and didn't start getting press until about 2 weeks in.

 

[Steeler]

I really don't get shrinking the economy to recovery but that seems to be the general republican strategy.

can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

 

[humpback]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/usa-taxes-idUSN1E7AS26020111129UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST By Richard CowanWASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

I believe the dialogue has been substantially affected by the OWS movement. How much did you here in mainstream media about income inequality pre OWS? VERY little. Of course reasonable people can disagree but I think Republicans have become much more attuned to the issue. We got a 80 page thread talking about the issue whereas it had come up relatively rarely before. That's been happening all across the country in various venues. 99% as a metaphor is here to stay. I seriously don't think it gets passed without OWS. We'd be talking about how the american people need more pain in order for recovery to take place. Or something like that. I really don't get shrinking the economy to recovery but that seems to be the general republican strategy.

So an extension of the payroll tax cut is going to address the income inequality issue?

 

[guderian]

I don't disagree--that's the very nature of capitalism that many of them are protesting. I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Logical fallacyIrrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. Example Argument: American citizens are rich in comparison with the rest of the world population so American citizens have no standing to complain about relative income inequality of other Amricans.Problem: Income inequality can still be problamatic regardless of the condition of other countries in the world.

Missing the point: You did it."Hypocritical"<>"no standing to complain"Yet again, it's the terminology that they use. Don't accuse someone of being "greedy", for instance, when you're advocating policies in your best economic interest. If you want more money, just say it and state why--don't accuse others of greed and demanding that they help the less fortunate when you're being just as greedy and not doing anything to help the less fortunate.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This would never happen if it weren't for the occupy movement.

http://www.reuters.c...E7AS26020111129

UPDATE 1-U.S. Republicans back payroll tax cut extension

Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:59pm EST

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday threw their support behind a payroll tax cut extension, trying to blunt charges ahead of 2012 elections of favoring wealthy Americans over middle-class workers.

Until Tuesday, Republicans had been lukewarm on extending President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut for workers, indicating they were open to negotiating it but never explicitly backing a measure, which the White House says will boost the country's sputtering economic recovery.

Yeah, no way would Republicans ever get rolled into supporting a tax cut without OWS.

I believe the dialogue has been substantially affected by the OWS movement. How much did you here in mainstream media about income inequality pre OWS? VERY little. Of course reasonable people can disagree but I think Republicans have become much more attuned to the issue. We got a 80 page thread talking about the issue whereas it had come up relatively rarely before. That's been happening all across the country in various venues. 99% as a metaphor is here to stay.

I seriously don't think it gets passed without OWS. We'd be talking about how the american people need more pain in order for recovery to take place. Or something like that. I really don't get shrinking the economy to recovery but that seems to be the general republican strategy.

It may not have happened if nothing had been done, but it certainly could have happened on any number of other initiatives...which I would have found far less distasteful than hijacking of public property, redirecting of public resources, police-baiting, victim-card playing and general whining that have been the hallmarks of the Occupy movement.The beauty of never making a single demand, however, is they get to claim any public initiative that vaguely touches upon anything they might have been angry about can be claimed as a success of the OWS movement and would not have happened 'but for' their 'efforts.'

Rubbish self-justifying action if you ask me.

 

[guderian]

I don't disagree--that's the very nature of capitalism that many of them are protesting. I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Logical fallacyIrrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. Example Argument: American citizens are rich in comparison with the rest of the world population so American citizens have no standing to complain about relative income inequality of other Amricans.Problem: Income inequality can still be problamatic regardless of the condition of other countries in the world.

In fact I'm all for equality in income potential achieved through mobility--not through taxing the wealthy down and not through guaranteeing people an equality of outcomes. In my opinion, the biggest problem our country has with "income equality" is the lack of upward mobility of those born in the lowest quintile. Those kids are just as smart as those born into higher quntiles, they just don't have the same educational opportunities. Why is that? In my opinion, the wealthy get to choose where they send their kids to school while the poor are forced to send their kids to a certain, often failing school. Giving them a better choice would have the biggest impact on the income mobility of those kids. It's kind of funny though that OWS really hasn't taken issue with the fact that wealthy kids get a better education than poor kids because their parents have a choice. It seems to me if these OWSers were really sincere about wanting the chance to equalize incomes that they'd be more aggressively advocating policies that would give poor parents the same choices as richer parents, yet they don't. They seem to be beholden to the same teachers unions as the Democratic party. OWS' education policy seems to be "forgive my student loans" and "make college free". How is that going to help a poor kid get into college with a ####ty education??? It's a solid fact that a college education leads to a superior income. So, if you have superior income potential, why not expect people to pay some of that back? How does giving college educated kids a freebie equalize incomes??? Seems like that would have the opposite effect.

 

[jamny]

Occupy Toronto Protester Weeps for Books

 

[jon_mx]

Occupy Toronto Protester Weeps for Books

I've have never been so moved to tears in my life.

 

[Fensalk]

HOnestly the only place I hear about AWS anymore is in the FFA.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Somebody better tell Frank Luntz that OWS is pointless and having no effect:

link

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."

Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'

"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'

"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."

"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

 

[jamny]

 

[Christo]

Peaceful my ###.

 

[Daywalker]

HOnestly the only place I hear about AWS anymore is in the FFA.

My local paper is covering it on small campuses all over my neck of the woods in SoCal. Small but numerous protests popping up all over here. This is not even taking into account the national and regional coverage. If anything it's gaining steam.