Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
remnant said:
Couldn't agree more. Going beyond Reagan is what makes the effects of lower taxes on top earners, income inequality and deregulation all the more stark.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
Couldn't agree more. Going beyond Reagan is what makes the effects of lower taxes on top earners, income inequality and deregulation all the more stark.
cooljeanius
Member
So I got a chance to speak with Congressman Yarmuth of Kentucky tonight about getting money out of politics, and he's in support of the Occupy Movement. I suggested he go check out the protests in McPherson Square, and he said he just might... I hope he actually does.
DOO13ER said:
I think it's pretty apparent, using these charts, that the capital gains tax cuts have dramatically exacerbated the wealth disparity problem. The effective rate of the top 1 percent has remained relatively flat, but the ability for a small number of people to make such huge gains in income from investments has had an incredible effect.
So, while Reagan has started the fire (by lowering cap. gains taxes in the 80's), Clinton, Bush and Obama have all passed policies that have made them even lower.
More reading here
cooljeanius
Member
The way I explain it is they were never really wondering where the jobs were in the first place.Jonm1010 said:
remnant said:
Other governments may have cut spending, but those countries still spend more per capita than we do on social services and I'm willing to bet that a lot more of that gets skimmed off the top by private companies here than it does in other countries due to our obsession with contracting public services to private companies. Also just saying they have lower taxes is meaningless because you've made no distinction of what kind of taxes and how progressive those taxes are or if they have loopholes for the wealthy or if they disproportionately tax earned income versus income accrued by wealth (e.g., capital gains).
Also, the premise that because other countries we admire for their social safety net don't have financial regulations equivalent to Glass-Steagal means that we shouldn't have them is stupid. If we get hit by a giant earthquake and suffer extreme loss of life due to poor quality building construction, we should institute better building regulations; whether other countries have done the same has no bearing on it.
Additionally, it is a bald-faced lie to say that increasing taxes on the 1% will not touch the deficit or the debt (funny that you lecture other people on their financial knowledge and you don't seem to know the difference between the two). It depends on what the top marginal tax rate is; in 1960 it was 90% on jointly filed incomes over 2.2 million and 81% for incomes over 1 million. And yes, all these incomes are already adjusted for inflation. As recently as 1981 it was 70% for jointly filed incomes over 0.5 million. At rates even below those, we would maker a huge dent in the deficit immediately and in the debt over several years.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
And regardless, you're making a shotgun argument against a bunch of random things you assume that they will talk about, strawmen, and for which you've provided no proof to back up your rebuttals.
Consider that 50% of the population has an IQ below 98 and that 21-23% of adults cannot even locate information in text or make low level inferences and that many in poverty do not have the means to improve those abilities. Do all those millions of people deserve to be taken advantage of because they can't understand how it was done? Or should it be a job for the people with the knowledge and power in and out of government to develop the solutions to resolve the issues which have caused their anger?remnant said:
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Don't get me wrong, you'll never hear me absolve any recent president of blame for the financial shit pile we find ourselves in today. But I also don't think bringing up Reagan's trickle down/government-is-the-problem policies in an economics seminar (assuming they are going to discuss Reagan, as remnant seems to insist on) would make the whole thing questionably biased.ToxicAdam said:
Dude Abides
Banned
remnant said:
The provision of Glass-Steagall that prohibited a bank holding company from owning other financial institutions was repealed. That means that we do not have a law that does what that did.
Maybe you should see if you can watch that crash course on Youtube, since you don't seem to know much about finance or financial regulation.
bill gonorrhea
Member
University of Washingtonivysaur12 said:
I'm sorry, but that occupy atlanta video refusing to allow Congressman John Lewis to speak was just freaking creepy. It looked both overly touchy feely ("this is just a temperature check, it's just how you feel!") and incredibly intimidating and overbearing (the creepy repetition of everything everyone said). I mean, really? Seriously?
Look, I do admire what the OWS movement is trying to accomplish. I'm a libertarian and more conservative than most of GAF but I've long thought the left needed a movement with a semblance of independence. The tea party gets a lot of flak on gaf some of it deserved, some of it not, I think it's more independent then some GAFers are going to think, and that's fine.
The closest thing to it on the left in recent years was the Howard Dean movement which was basically predicated on being against the Iraq war, a position that was woefully lacking on both sides in congress at the time. I thought that represented hope for a new voice I could support, someone I could disagree with on a myriad of issues but agree with on a big issue.
Fast forward and we know that the Howard Dean "anti-war" movement not only effectively does not exist as a coehsive coalition but it was wholly subsumed and adopted the voice of the ESTABLISHMENT Dems in the meantime.
So I guess I'm saying, I get it. You want this movement to succeed you're going to have to have a modicum of independence and the ability to tell the establishment to go fuck itself when it needs to. The problem is you can't do it by wholly rejecting dialogue with them like spoiled children. As was noted this was a concern about "process" but the thing about movements is... they're about changing the process to make it work. An opportunity was lost to hear a valuable voice and all that it receives is a shrug of the shoulders and a oh well, he couldn't stay.
I'm sure John Lewis will be back because John Lewis is a good man who agrees with your goals, but at the same time the way you're coming off is incredibly off putting. At some point if people are genuinely serious about crafting a serious movement you're going to need leadership of some sort that is a bit more focused and direction oriented than that.
Maybe this post will surprise some of you, I certainly disagree with a lot of the focus of the OWS movement, many of the goals don't interest me overly much. But the fact that a group of people are challenging the establishment thinking is interesting and laudable. It just seems to be coming off as CREEPY.
Look, I do admire what the OWS movement is trying to accomplish. I'm a libertarian and more conservative than most of GAF but I've long thought the left needed a movement with a semblance of independence. The tea party gets a lot of flak on gaf some of it deserved, some of it not, I think it's more independent then some GAFers are going to think, and that's fine.
The closest thing to it on the left in recent years was the Howard Dean movement which was basically predicated on being against the Iraq war, a position that was woefully lacking on both sides in congress at the time. I thought that represented hope for a new voice I could support, someone I could disagree with on a myriad of issues but agree with on a big issue.
Fast forward and we know that the Howard Dean "anti-war" movement not only effectively does not exist as a coehsive coalition but it was wholly subsumed and adopted the voice of the ESTABLISHMENT Dems in the meantime.
So I guess I'm saying, I get it. You want this movement to succeed you're going to have to have a modicum of independence and the ability to tell the establishment to go fuck itself when it needs to. The problem is you can't do it by wholly rejecting dialogue with them like spoiled children. As was noted this was a concern about "process" but the thing about movements is... they're about changing the process to make it work. An opportunity was lost to hear a valuable voice and all that it receives is a shrug of the shoulders and a oh well, he couldn't stay.
I'm sure John Lewis will be back because John Lewis is a good man who agrees with your goals, but at the same time the way you're coming off is incredibly off putting. At some point if people are genuinely serious about crafting a serious movement you're going to need leadership of some sort that is a bit more focused and direction oriented than that.
Maybe this post will surprise some of you, I certainly disagree with a lot of the focus of the OWS movement, many of the goals don't interest me overly much. But the fact that a group of people are challenging the establishment thinking is interesting and laudable. It just seems to be coming off as CREEPY.
Gaborn said:
Meh. Guy was a Marxist. A bit strange. Fucking Marxists, right? None of that stuff going on anywhere else. The People's Mic is still legit, but obviously someone's going to be all overserious with his own strange and wonderful agenda at some point. I'm pretty sure most of those people didn't think 'the state was out to kill them', or whatever it was he kept saying. Sometimes you just have to keep an eye on the guy who grabs the leadership mic at the leaderless event.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
No it isn't. He isn't the first guy who say that a violent revolution is needed in these movements either. These people need to be ostracized from the movement though. Immediately. It's really destructive.Menelaus said:
I support the protests, but haven't really been able to keep up on news regarding them..
Have any major political persons commented on any of the Occupy protests? IE: Obama, congress, etc?
All I have heard so far was that Ron Paul didn't really understand it, but supported the right to protest (I think that is the gist of what he said, at least).
Have any major political persons commented on any of the Occupy protests? IE: Obama, congress, etc?
All I have heard so far was that Ron Paul didn't really understand it, but supported the right to protest (I think that is the gist of what he said, at least).
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Menelaus said:
With friends like these...
Kevitivity
Member
Occupy Wall St. speaker calles for violent revolution...
Looks like it's more than just dickhead hipsters and lowlifes that are jumping on the bandwagon... that guy sounds like he's from an Arab country to me.
Looks like it's more than just dickhead hipsters and lowlifes that are jumping on the bandwagon... that guy sounds like he's from an Arab country to me.
Dude Abides
Banned
OMG! One guy at one rally called for violence in response to another guy who previously said they should be nonviolent!
Grab your gun ma, they's a-fixin' ta put us white folks up against the wall!
Grab your gun ma, they's a-fixin' ta put us white folks up against the wall!
BotoxAgent
Member
Dude Abides said:
corporate media is desperate to bring this movement down
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
Menelaus said:
http://youtu.be/uE2M7g_IWSE
Well, what about transgendered Maoists and guys in rainbow turtlenecks?
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
akira28 said:
ITT - People who make sweeping generalizations about Tea Party members get butthurt at the same thing happening to a movement that they support.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
x Power Pad Death Stomp x said:
Uh huh, cause them there a-rabs are always tryna kill us kind white folk herrrrrp.Kevitivity said:
Feel free to point out with links where specific members made sweeping generalizations about the tea party, then got butthurt about the same thing happening to a movement they support.x Power Pad Death Stomp x said:
Please define hipster.Menelaus said:
dave is ok
aztek is ok
I just noticed that after the crash of 1929, the U.S. raised the top marginal tax rate from 25% to 63%. Now we'd be called socialists if it were raised from 35% to 39%.
x Power Pad Death Stomp x
Member
akira28 said:
What can I say, quality has no demographic, amirite?
Kevitivity
Member
The best thing about this new moronic convergence taking place on Wall St. is what it means for the disastrous and failed BO administration. I see the potential for a wacky, left of BO challenger showing up in Nov. and taking a considerable percentage of the liberal voting pie.
Its that singular reason that I hope these mouth-breathers are able to keep it up... But winter is moving in and the New York crowd is either going to freeze or be forced to return the warmth of their parents homes... at least Skyrim will be out soon so these "anti-corporation" numbskulls will have something to do!
Its that singular reason that I hope these mouth-breathers are able to keep it up... But winter is moving in and the New York crowd is either going to freeze or be forced to return the warmth of their parents homes... at least Skyrim will be out soon so these "anti-corporation" numbskulls will have something to do!
heliosRAzi
Banned
CHARTS: Here's What the Wall Street Protesters are so Angry About
Pretty good article on wealth inequality
Pretty good article on wealth inequality
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Have any representatives of this movement released figures on what is an acceptable level of wealth?
I'm not kidding.
I'm not kidding.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
They're staying out of politics for the time being. They were invented for the sole purpose of shoveling votes to a party like the Tea PartyKevitivity said:
x Power Pad Death Stomp x said:
People at Tea Party events said things like Obama is a muslim, wasn't born in this country, the government is trying to take away my guns and religion, keep government out of medicare etc. All straight up lies. Where is the equivalent idiocy in this current movement?
No one will ever top the tea party when it comes to being dumb and flat out wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II21iLtbLY4&feature=related
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Maybe if these people were born into a wealthy family they could afford a better education.JoshDigi said:
Dude Abides
Banned
Menelaus said:
I wouldn't really call Texas A&M a "university," but here we are.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
And have intelligent political positions.ElectricBlanketFire said:
ElectricBlanketFire said:
I assume any level is acceptable as long as you're paying an acceptable level of taxes. Having wealth isn't the problem, paying very little income taxes and utilizing tax loopholes is one of the issues.. Tax rates for the rich had been hacked down significantly after Reagan was elected in 1980. People just want a system that works, and if that revenue from the upper tax brackets was recovered, it would enable the Gov to fund response programs to help stabilize the economy.
ElectricBlanketFire said:
They want to shut down the Board of Education and they want to inject fantasy history and anti-science teachings into the curriculum. They very easily could afford better educations, but their leaders don't believe in "better". They believe in "more traditional" and "faithful to Bible teachings". That's hard to counter. These aren't generalizations, this is the stated policy supported by the Tea Party. Defund everything they don't believe in, because it's bad spending and will save the economy if cut.
- Status