|
Post by Karen on Dec 31, 2011 14:39:29 GMT -5
The number 1 'demand' of Occupy Wall Street - what all the people can agree on - whether flaming liberal, veteran, or tea party follower - is to level the playing field by getting the money/lobbyists out of our government, especially by getting rid of 'corporate personhood' which allows corporations to contribute to politicians like they are people.
Money is the root of it all. And power.
The 99% has the numbers, but the corporations' money is equal to $1 = 1 vote. And that is not the voice of the majority.
My son Lew said something profound to me the other day (while we had one of our major political chat sessions, lol) - that
when people (the masses) come together 'enmass', then God is present and so is 'good'ness.
I like that notion. I propose that every US citizen over the age of 16 be given the vote - just use your social security card as proof - and everyone MUST vote or be fined. Because the more of us who are present and accounted for, the better the country will be.
And allowing kids to vote at 16, will stress to them the responsibilty that comes with voting, just as in driving.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 2, 2012 18:15:53 GMT -5
Oy. Karen, I feel for you. I, too, am pretty socially liberal but fiscally and constitutionally conservative. A lot of my differing view is based on what I see as the proper role for government, and looking around the world, and especially at ours, I can't see that government has managed to cure society's ills instead of exacerbating them. Hell, the US government couldn't even manage to run a whorehouse and make money. I sure don't trust them to do anything right. Besides, our population numbers make it a pipe dream that we can all be taken care of in the same way. Sooner or later, we'll run out of money. It isn't working too well in Europe and they have fewer people by country than we do. *sigh* I'd love there to be a way for everyone to be healthy, happy and have the same opportunity as everyone else, but as you say, we ain't there yet. Hmm. I can see where your coming from, but... The problem, as always in my view, is money. We are not currently a representative government; only about 300,000 of us are being truly represented. Yet the government, in essence, are our employees; it is our tax dollars that pay for their salaries (not the 1%, who pay far less a percentage of tax then the average person), thus, they are being bad employees by not representing US. They are shirking their responsibilities. Yes, I believe that I am entitled to care when I'm elderly, to social security, to the government programs I have paid into. These programs, Medicare, Social Security, work excellently well when they are not fucked with. They are good things, they cost little, and they provide for those whose industry and time keep this country running. The 1% are NOT job creators, at least not for Americans; they exploit tax loopholes, poison our environment, and then move to a struggling country and exploit their workers and environment by paying far below subsistence and poisoning another part of the world that does not have the very excellent government regulations against, say, arsenic in our drinking water, that we have. So that's my view: We have hired these individuals to act as caretakers, and they are letting the estate fall to pieces through negligence, through pettiness and greed. And I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but in my own lifetime, I have never seen such a sharp division between Repubs. and Dems. as I do now. For all their faults, the Dems. are trying to elevate this above a playground fight. The current (house) Republicans want to break all the toys rather than share. It makes me furious. NOTE: Please understand I am referring to those in Congress, not all those who identify as Republicans, OK? Well. . .. First of all, let me just say I'm not a Republican. They haven't exactly been doing their duty, either. I am not painting anyone here with the brush I use to paint the congressional democrats or the administration. I can't agree with you regarding the conduct of the democrat party, but I'll get to an example, later. I could write for days if I cite every example I can come up with, so I'll keep it to the most recent skirmish. Let's accept the fact that social security and medicare were established. Whether or not their mandate was constitutional, or an entitlement culture is healthy in the long run, is something else, entirely. It's too late to debate that now and the issue is how in the hell are we going to maintain the funds? 47% of the people of working age in this country pay no taxes. None. I pay all of my own social security, medicare (approx 17%) and income tax. I am by no means wealthy, making far less than 50k a year. When talking about the so-called 1%, remember, people like Warren Buffet pay no income tax. That's because they don't earn wages. They pay no social security, either. Anyone who earns a wage greater than 250,000 a year pays income tax at the maximum rate or just below it depending on filing status, and at least part of their social security (that's only on the first 100k, or so). When Buffet says he pays less by percentage than his secretary, he's comparing apples to oranges. She is a wage earner and whatever he pays her, she likely pays close to the max 35%, but not less than 25%. He pays on cap gains and interest and I notice he is fighting the IRS over an enormous back tax bill. Hey Warren, why not suck it up and take one for the team by giving up the fight? Let's not forget that there are a whole host of additional hidden and known taxes that every one pays if they consume anything (sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax), own property (property taxes), have to license a motor vehicle or motorcycle or skooter, own or use a cell phone, have cable or satellite, etc. I'm not including state and municipal income taxes, but you can add those into the mix, as well. If you taxed every person who qualifies as a millionaire or billionaire 100% you wouldn't get enough money in a year to make a dent in the debt or deficit. What happens when you do that? Eventually, they'll stop making money since they don't get to keep any of it and the government will have no one left to tax. If you want me to get the link to the source for this, let me know. So, what do we do? I suspect that even if you taxed accumulated wealth it wouldn't make enough of a difference. The truly wealthy (celebrities, congress people, Buffet, Soros, Koch Bros, etc. want the rest of us to pay more) and if you take their money, they'll just make sure they either hide it or stop making it. Unfortunately, that means we're going to have to increase the tax base, and that includes everyone paying something. I don't care if it's 10.00 a year, everyone of working age has to pay into the system. One of the problems with the SS fund is that when Congress starting taking money out of it and putting it into the general fund, it began to go belly up. There really is no social security trust fund. The democrat Congress did that some 40 years ago. Nice, huh? Add to that the fact that with unemployment what it is fewer people are paying into the system. That doesn't help the numbers, either. You would be in a better position than I with respect to the future, even if ss is partly privatized. You have more years of working left. My specific demographic is screwed, no matter what happens. When you talk about the House Repubs taking or breaking the toys, I can't agree. What you don't hear, just as an example, is how they voted to extend the payroll tax holiday (also a bad idea for social security, since it cuts the payments into the so-called fund) for one year. Not two months. Guess what we're going to be hearing about in February? Yep. The president and the senate (stupid senate repubs included) got what they wanted. A lousy 2 month extension. How the hell does that help anyone? The average family might see 40.00 a month. Yes, that may handle half an electric bill, but it won't help much beyond that. I think the whole holiday was ill-advised in the first place, given the state of ss and medicare, but that's beside the point. Some of the house repubs are actually trying to bring some sanity back to government. We cannot pay for all the shit we promise. It's a simple as that. You want money for all this stuff? Get ready to fork over much more than 60% of your income. Better yet, let the government take it all and give you an allowance. If we had some guaranty that the government wouldn't spend all our money on bullshit and would pay the stupid debt and deficit down, I guess I could say go ahead and tax me some more. However, since it won't and it can't manage to do anything right, I'm not inclined to give it more of my money to spend on shit I don't agree with. I'm not kidding when I tell you the government can't even run a whorehouse and make money. I'll link you to that, too, if you wish. Listen, I think the government wants to off the elderly because they can't be owned and they are expensive. (At least my mother's generation). They usually have very little, to no debt so they're paying no one any juice. They are generally property owners and own their properties outright. Again, no juice. Just my belief. I want my mother's generation to stick around a while, but given the state of the economy and the plain fact that almost 50% of working age people don't pay any fed income tax, I'm thinking that's not going to happen and it pisses me off. At a minimum, we have to raise the retirement age and increase the number at which one gets to pay no social security or medicare taxes. Right now I think income over 100k is exempt. Raise it. The solution isn't to increase the fed tax rate on people whose s corps gross 1million a year out of which they have to pay salaries, etc. Increase the tax base with a simpler, more streamlined tax code. (2 or 3 deductions for individuals and 5 for business). Cut out the farm subsidies to people like Bruce Springsteen, Ted Turner and Bono (who have a few bee hives or something and get funded by the government). Notice: there's another entitlement. No subsidies to anyone whose livelihood isn't, you know, actually farming. That means you're safe under my system, Julia. And, no subsidies to agribusiness, either. Look out ADM. Get rid of some executive branch departments, too. That will save some money. Cut out subsidies to favored industries. The government has no business picking winners and losers. Under our Constitution our federal government was intended to have very few enumerated powers. It has metastasized beyond imagination. The cost of the government, alone, is mind boggling. Cut it. Every single department is going to have to cut costs. They can share the sacrifice as some are fond of saying. No one wants to cut any expenses and a pure entitlement culture with more than 300 million people can't be sustained. It's just not possible. Moreover, I believe that establishing an entitlement culture infantalizes people and is morally reprehensible. I'm not saying don't take care of the helpless. I believe we have to take care of the helpless. We should not be taking care of the clueless as Dennis Miller says. Nowadays, those who are willfully unable qualify as helpless. That's just wrong. Every single entitlement program we have is bankrupt. That isn't because some idiot bazillionaires aren't paying enough in taxes. Did you know that in 2009, for example, the top 5% of income earners paid 58.66% of all the tax revenue collected by the federal government? The top 10% paid 70.47% of the revenues collected. The top 25% of income earners paid 87.30% of all tax revenue collected and the top 50% paid more than 97% of the tax revenue collected. That means the bottom 50% paid less than 3% of the tax revenue collected. The top 1%, and that includes those .01% who are actually really wealthy like celebs, Buffet, Kochs et al, paid 36.73% of the total revenue earned, just by themselves. Are they really not paying their fair share? Who determines what share is fair, anyway? Our problems are intractable and can't be solved with huge sweeping actions. Right now we are teetering on the brink of insolvency and swiping money from the 1% (don't let anyone fool you, those OWS college kids come from very well-to-do homes, I do have a link for that too) isn't going to cure our problems. Here's the bottom line. My view is different because I don't believe it's the government's money to take and do whatever it wants with it. It is mine and I let the government have it to pay for those things I think it should pay for. (Well, I let it have my money at gunpoint, but I digress). I happen to believe that social security and medicare are important for those already in the system and about to be in the system. Both programs can and must be modified to protect them and ensure availability for future retirees. They're still important, but they need fixing for the future. That means for your generation and those after. Universal health care sounds nice, but we ain't any one of the countries in Europe. Nor are we Canada. We have too damn many people to cover everyone. When a third party pays, no one cares what things cost and eventually rationing will have to be a fact of life. Not my idea of great health care. It's just not affordable, but there might be a better happy medium. It just hasn't been investigated. A real conservative knows that things have to be done in increments so one can suss out any unintended consequences before they become too huge to fix. I don't have the solutions, but I do know that we can't continue as we are and everyone has to be involved. That's a fact. I'd like to reiterate that I am not including anyone here when I talk about the democrats. I'm not thrilled with either party, but I do think the house repubs are getting a bad rap and the full story isn't being told, or you might be just as appalled at the conduct of the democrats, too.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 2, 2012 21:07:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Onjel, for enumerating so clearly what your position is; I can't say I really agree a lot of your points (particularly Medicare's solvency and the importance of national debt), but we both have knowledge that we thus interpret in different ways.
I don't want to get into a back and forth (because it's not helpful or worthwhile, as there are a number of points where I hold the exact opposite opinion), so I'll say that I am with you 100% about subsidies; particularly for oil companies. They have exactly zero need, and their record of accountability with regards to the health of the environment and human beings is borderline sociopathic.
OK, wait, I do want to argue one point, coming from the perspective of someone who used to work for a medical society...we absolutely need universal health care. The health care system in this country is a crime; insurance companies as our "third party payer," rake in billions, and they do, in fact, ration care depending on one's level of coverage. It offends my morals for someone to get wealthy off the suffering of others (then again, is there another path to wealth?). In my view, it would be cheaper in the long run to provide universal health care (particularly preventive medicine) than to deal with the massive cost of treating the uninsured (of which I am currently one, through no fault of my own), when they become seriously ill.
And I'll stop now, because this is a "agree to disagree" situation.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 2, 2012 22:47:54 GMT -5
Where to start. ;D 1. "Members of Congress enjoyed a collective net worth of more than $2 billion dollars in 2010, a nearly 25 percent increase in two years, according to a Roll Call analysis of Members’ financial disclosure forms." Roll CallThat increase in wealth doesn't include homes or income generating properties. "Congress is also getting richer faster than the rest of the nation. According to Federal Reserve data, from the end of 2008 to end of 2010, aggregate household worth increased 12 percent.” which is about half the increase Congress achieved during the same time period." So where is that income coming from? One has to wonder how members of Congress can turn their salaries into such a huge gain of wealth. Onjel - can you send me the link for your statement about the protesters - "Our problems are intractable and can't be solved with huge sweeping actions. Right now we are teetering on the brink of insolvency and swiping money from the 1% (don't let anyone fool you, those OWS college kids come from very well-to-do homes, I do have a link for that too) isn't going to cure our problems. " What do you consider 'well to do'? From what I've seen of the protesters, and I've been on the livestream chats and watching the marches and meetings and such, and these OWS kids, as you call them, are very sincere and concerned for the future of everyone. But it's not just college kids down there protesting. There are mothers and grandmothers, veterans and recently graduated and recently returned troops. Kids who have had to take part-time and minimum wage jobs who have degrees that are useless in this economy. Kids whose parents have cosigned loans and mortgaged houses in order to give them a good education. Parents who are losing their houses because they themselves have lost their jobs, and their houses have been devalued and the banks refuse to work with them. Occupy Wall Street is our last hope. And I do think we need a sweeping reform. In light of Obama signing the defense bill on New Year's Eve while everyone was partying - the bill that has the indefinite detention clause in it - the bill he said he wasn't going to sign with that language in it - the bill he signed anyway. Which basically gives him the power to throw anyone the military/CIA considers a threat to the country - which includes the protesters - without due process - not contact with family, lawyers or anyone on the outside. The year long budget that the Republicans wanted to push through had poison pills in it that they knew the Democrats wouldn't swallow. And the big one was the approval for the Keystone XL pipeline. Which proponents agree that they have exaggerated the number of jobs it would provide. Also - the oil isn't going to the US to lower our gas prices - it's getting refined in Texas and shipped overseas - to China. Canada doesn't want it being built across their pristine wilderness, so ship the shit down here thru our country. Will make a few people very wealthy. I hear that argument all the time that taxing the 1% more won't solve our problems. That taxing them at 100% won't even help. We've been lowering the taxes on these so-called job creators for the past 30 yeas - so where are the jobs? Overseas, that's where. The debt 'crisis' is man-made. You didn't hear a word about the debt crisis when we were financing the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. If we want to start with budget cuts, lets cut defense. It's a huge suck on our economy. We have fighter jets sitting idle because they don't work. "$67 billion spent on Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptors. Not only are they the most expensive fighter jet ever built, the Air Force is now going to spend another $24 million to find out why pilots keep passing out while flying them." I don't know what the answers are, I just know that our country is in trouble. And anyone who is exercising their 1st Amendment right to protest is a target. And that includes journalists who want to publish or video the truth. In Syria, the government has killed 5000 citizens in the past 9 months - people protesting the corrupt government in place there. There are citizen journalists risking their lives filming the protests and police brutality. But do you see this on the 6-o'clock news here? Eh. I should just quit worrying about it.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 2, 2012 23:02:36 GMT -5
Also?
In 2007, "the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," which is "more than the entire bottom 50 percent."
Which is why the bottom 50 percent don't pay much in taxes. They don't earn that much.
And income for the bottom 50 percent has remained almost the same for the past 30 years - or gone down, taking into account cost of living, while the top 1% has seen their income skyrocket.
And their taxes drop. So, now we are in a mess and maybe have passed a tipping point where things can't be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 3, 2012 10:42:28 GMT -5
Thanks, Onjel, for enumerating so clearly what your position is; I can't say I really agree a lot of your points (particularly Medicare's solvency and the importance of national debt), but we both have knowledge that we thus interpret in different ways. I don't want to get into a back and forth (because it's not helpful or worthwhile, as there are a number of points where I hold the exact opposite opinion), so I'll say that I am with you 100% about subsidies; particularly for oil companies. They have exactly zero need, and their record of accountability with regards to the health of the environment and human beings is borderline sociopathic. OK, wait, I do want to argue one point, coming from the perspective of someone who used to work for a medical society...we absolutely need universal health care. The health care system in this country is a crime; insurance companies as our "third party payer," rake in billions, and they do, in fact, ration care depending on one's level of coverage. It offends my morals for someone to get wealthy off the suffering of others (then again, is there another path to wealth?). In my view, it would be cheaper in the long run to provide universal health care (particularly preventive medicine) than to deal with the massive cost of treating the uninsured (of which I am currently one, through no fault of my own), when they become seriously ill. And I'll stop now, because this is a "agree to disagree" situation. I totally see your point about universal single payer health care. In theory, I agree with you. It's the practical aspect that I can't reconcile. I won't disagree with you about the insurance companies, except to say that among all insurance companies, the health care ones have the lowest marginal profit rate. The publicly held ones have to answer to their shareholders, most of whom are union pension plans. See what a tangle this is? I just don't see where we get the money to cover more than 300 million people. No one will work for free. That is slavery and I put the bulk of the blame on the existence of a third party payer, actually. It distorts pricing and the market to a degree that we have the problems with health care distribution that we do. The fact of the matter is that by federal law, no one can be turned down for emergency care at any public hospital. So, yes, in one sense we are already paying for uninsured medical care. We're just not paying as much as we will be paying. You had a pretty good experience with the UK's health system. You're young. Ask the elderly about their experiences. It's not pretty. The articles I see on the UK Daily Mail are enough to curl my hair even more than it currently is. I can't see anything better for this country because we have so many more people. The fact of the matter is that for those with money there is private health care in Europe which is far better than for those on the government programs. France has government insurance for the masses with okay care, mostly preventive in nature and that part is good, while it also has private health insurance for the wealthy with stellar care. The government subsidized health insurance payments are causing the system to go broke without some sort of recapture plan put in place. They can't decide how to go about it. The sorry fact is that those with means will get better health care everywhere in the world, while those without will still get the shaft or at best, average care. (I'm one of those without, by the way, so I'm not basing my opinions on being able to afford great health care and saying fuck everyone else.) Universal health care doesn't change that. It just hides it. I really believe that until humankind finds out it's not alone in the universe it won't unite and until it unites, these problems won't be solved. Period. You can't legislate human nature out of the equation as we currently are and those with means believe that, if they can pay for it, they should get better care. Personally, I think it holds humankind back, but it isn't going to change in my lifetime. Another problem with our health care system is the cost of equipment. Why, for example, does an MRI machine bought in this country cost 4 times what it costs in Japan? The same with medications. I believe that the people of this country are subsidizing the medical expenses for the rest of the world. We pay more than anyone for medical care and we do that so the suppliers (medical personnel, facilities, big pharma and the machine makers) can supply everyone else at the lower costs mandated by foreign governments. It pisses me off, no end. Why do you think Big Pharma and GE were so in favor of the recently enacted health care law? Why do you think the insurance companies were so in favor of it? They could all raise prices, and make a killing, that's why. This bill wasn't the great panacea it's been sold to be. All the insurance companies are raising rates as fast as they can and all those exemptions to the plan are evidence that it's not been enacted for our benefit, that's for sure. Back to insurance companies. I do some work for insurance companies and I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that they are instruments of the devil. Seriously. I'm not being hyperbolic. I hate them. They are the bankers for the world and control everything. It's unbelievable. Why do you think we paid to bail out AIG? I don't know what's to be done. I'd like to see them all go. Coverage for liability only and that's that. In actuality, I lean toward the conservative side of libertarianism, but I do believe there is a place for government, not just a huge place. That's where we would fundamentally disagree. Doesn't mean I don't still love ya. We just have different views and that's what makes the world great. Karen: I'm speaking of the original OWS students. The New York occupiers. I have two links with some demographic information. The first one is from an actual survey of protesters in New York and shows that a little over 26% of them earn more than the average family salary of $50,000.00 per year. The second link is specific to the demographics of the more than 900 people arrested during OWS events. Read them both. They're interesting. Listen, I can relate to many of their positions and so can some Tea Party people. They make sense, especially as they pertain to the power of lobbyists in our government. The first link. The second link.Our government is made up of insider-trading, self-aggrandizing self-enriching douches. No argument there. Every single person who goes into congress and the federal government, who is in a position with some authority and high level contacts ends up wealthier than they were when they went in. This shit has to stop. I'm am tired of paying them to a) not write the damn laws they want to foist on us (they have outside lobbyists write them); b) be exempt from the laws they foist on us (read health care, social security-into which they do not contribute), etc.; and c) get rich on my dime. What the hell are they doing, anyway? Go home and get a real job and keep the hell out of my life. That's all I ask.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 3, 2012 11:08:21 GMT -5
Also? In 2007, "the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," which is "more than the entire bottom 50 percent." Which is why the bottom 50 percent don't pay much in taxes. They don't earn that much. And income for the bottom 50 percent has remained almost the same for the past 30 years - or gone down, taking into account cost of living, while the top 1% has seen their income skyrocket. And their taxes drop. So, now we are in a mess and maybe have passed a tipping point where things can't be fixed. Did you know that the top 50% starts at $32,396.00 per year, so when we talk about the top 50% we're including people who don't make very much per year. I'd be in there, given my income is just over the bottom there. Do I think that's a fair demographic split? Nope. These are the government's numbers. Here's the link. Scroll up to the top table. It's an eye-opener, that's for sure. Talking about taxing the 1%: My cousins own a car dealership. It's an s-corp. Anyone who owns a small or medium business is a job creator. Taxing their business income any more will mean they won't be hiring. The true 1%, those who make money off of moving money around wall street and acting/singing, etc. are the wealthy non-job creators. The jobs that have gone overseas have gone for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the cost of employment here and the regulations that other governments just don't seem to think are important. Those jobs have been moved by large corporations, not the small and middle business people, who create 80% of the jobs in this country. Do what you want to the big guys. I'm tired of the crony capitalism (which is what we really have here, not actual capitalism) which picks winners and losers by protecting the big inefficient, blood suckers at the expense of the smaller entrepreneurs. Believe it or not, with respect to some things, we are really on the same page. I'm just reading bottom up and you're reading top-down. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 11:44:19 GMT -5
Onjel - I agree with so much of what you say. Actually, almost all of it. But no matter our disagreements, I think you and I and Erin could sit down and try to figure out a solution, because we don't have special interest groups funding us, or putting pressure on us, or bribing us to make sure that our decisions kept them in the money. So, what IS the solution and why isn't our Congress working for the people? I don't see the Republicans have a solution other than everyone (except the .01%) paying more. Hell, haven't the working class paid increasing more than their fair share in the past 10 years? Taxes aren't just income taxes. They come in the form of higher food prices because of higher gas prices, which the states add tax to - some states anyway. There are no loopholes for the 99% to take advantage of - not to the extent that the 1% have. Romney won't show his tax return 'until he's president' - and good luck getting it out of him them. They all lie through their teeth and excuse themselves later by saying they made a mistake. And here I'm talking about Fox News pundits. But by then, the damage has been done because people believe the lie which has been said over and over, not the retraction, which is normallly only put out there once - and not on "page one". Our Constitution has been stepped all over. It almost makes me want to hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul. Almost. The Republicans, frankly, scare me. They almost passed a law in Mississippi - Initiative 26 - The Personhood Amendment -which would have provided legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of all human beings – at any stage of development. And they would have deemed a fertilized egg a 'person'. I personally would not abort a fetus. But this law is wrong. It would only serve to oppress women even more than they already are. It would make taking a birth control pill illegal. It would subject women who have miscarriages to investigation - and if they were married to someone who wanted to cast aspersions on them for their own purposes....well, remember when men had the right to put their wives in mental institutions? It regression. Pure and simple. That is the current Republican party. No matter the flaws of the 'left', at least the Democratic Party promotes human and social justice. Not corporate welface. And I know that the OWS seed group was a group of highly intelligent and gainfully employed young people who were inspired and moved by the protests in Spain and Greece - and there were some people from Spain who came over to show how to 'occupy'. But that is who must do it. Because the homeless and the 15% of the US that is in poverty don't have the means to do it. Most don't even realize that they CAN do anything to improve their plight. www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ Most of the Occupys attracted the homeless. In fact, the police would drop off the homeless, especially the mentally ill or alcoholic men, at the occupy sites, hoping to disrupt them and show the public how dirty the sites were. The Occupiers ended up feeding and clothing them because the police wouldn't respond to 911 calls about violent people at the camps. It's like they didn't have any rights just because they were protesting. And that is the way they've been treated all across the board. The police brutality is not the exception, it is the rule and it happens late at night, when it can't be easily filmed or seen live. We are still fighting for civil rights. But this time it isn't just for the civil rights of minorities and women, it's for the civil rights of all of us. Because they are being taken away from us under the guise of 'keeping us safe'. Sound familiar? They just passed the NDAA - on New Year's Eve! Anything that has to be passed in the dead of night and on a holiday, just screams 'evil'. www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-outrage-continues-to-grow-online-2012-1Time for the change Obama promised us. Which is the main reason we have the occupy protests. Those behind it supported Obama and the change he promised and they feel betrayed. And they are angry. And he knows it.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 12:16:26 GMT -5
Also? In 2007, "the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income," which is "more than the entire bottom 50 percent." Which is why the bottom 50 percent don't pay much in taxes. They don't earn that much. And income for the bottom 50 percent has remained almost the same for the past 30 years - or gone down, taking into account cost of living, while the top 1% has seen their income skyrocket. And their taxes drop. So, now we are in a mess and maybe have passed a tipping point where things can't be fixed. Did you know that the top 50% starts at $32,396.00 per year, so when we talk about the top 50% we're including people who don't make very much per year. I'd be in there, given my income is just over the bottom there. Do I think that's a fair demographic split? Nope. These are the government's numbers. Here's the link. Scroll up to the top table. It's an eye-opener, that's for sure. Talking about taxing the 1%: My cousins own a car dealership. It's an s-corp. Anyone who owns a small or medium business is a job creator. Taxing their business income any more will mean they won't be hiring. The true 1%, those who make money off of moving money around wall street and acting/singing, etc. are the wealthy non-job creators. The jobs that have gone overseas have gone for a variety of reas ;)ons, not least of which is the cost of employment here and the regulations that other governments just don't seem to think are important. Those jobs have been moved by large corporations, not the small and middle business people, who create 80% of the jobs in this country. Do what you want to the big guys. I'm tired of the crony capitalism (which is what we really have here, not actual capitalism) which picks winners and losers by protecting the big inefficient, blood suckers at the expense of the smaller entrepreneurs. Believe it or not, with respect to some things, we are really on the same page. I'm just reading bottom up and you're reading top-down. ;D But small businesses wouldn't get taxed more, because they are the job creators. It's the .01% actually that need to pony up. (The 1% is just used in the slogans because it flows better than the 99.99% vs the .01%, lol...but that is what they mean.) Ah...it is so very complicated, which is what the gamblers on Wall Street are counting on. They are skewing our stock market because they are shorting commodities, that they don't even have any invested interest in. The amount they can punch into their computers and gamble on needs to be capped at $10,000. They can put millions of dollars (often pension money) into the system and make huge amounts of money. It is complicated, and one of the OWS organizers used to write and install the software for Wall Street. He quit when he saw the damage it was doing, and is using his intelligence (and money) for good. He family is from Russia, and his story is very interesting. People all over the world look to the US for hope and inspiration. If we fail and give up our liberties, they feel all is lost for the common people everywhere. They are pulling for OWS. 200,000 people in Russia marched on Christmas Eve in Moscow to protest corruption in their government. People are protesting still in Egypt - and now they are using live ammo on them. It's crunch time. Why do you think the US is gearing up for martial law? They know and feel it's coming too. But it doesn't have to get that bad. The protesters are peaceful. They will keep it that way for as long as they have to because they know that is the only way it will work. All the violence you see is being provoked by an excessive militarized police force. Last year, Wisconsin police joined with the protesters marching on the capital against Walker's push to bust the unions there. They joined the teachers and nurses and public service workers whose rights were being threatened, even though the governor assured them that the police and firefighters were exempt from the changes. But they weren't having any of it. They could see that they were next in line. Funny thing is, the politicians are next in line after that, if we let the military get too much power. The politicians are always then pressured and bullied. Then you have fascism, etc. OWS is for capitilism, but with boundaries - like any good ism, you need boundaries for it to work. The boundaries seem to be put only on the 99%, and the 1% are exempt from them. "Too big to fail." isn't a telling slogan for nothing. The rule of law is being stepped on, and at the point when most of the judges and the rules that are in place are corrupted, then our country really is doomed. And Joss will be right again - it'll get 'interesting'.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 12:34:46 GMT -5
Believe it or not, with respect to some things, we are really on the same page. I'm just reading bottom up and you're reading top-down. ;D I know! And that is how most discussions seem to go with people I chat with on the OWS livestreams (which attracts all sorts of people, young and old, mostly white, I believe, because the minorities are afraid of speaking out- they are so used of being targets- and all sorts of political persuasions - but all concerned with the state of current affairs). We (most - except for the trolls who just like to stir things up) end up meeting in the middle and realize that there is a way out of this mess. It's called compromise. Which seems to be a dirty work in Congress at the moment. Seriously, tho? When nearly half of the discretionary budget went toward military spending, and talk only seems to be centered on taking away food stamps and unemployment insurance - which is such a small part of our total budget, steam starts coming out of my ears. Non-defense spending went from 17.7% of total spending in FY 2008 to 12.5% in FY 2012. When did our country start believing that collateral damage of children and older people is necesssary to accept in order to keep up military expenditures abroad? When we can blow up the world 9 times over and send drones in with ease, why do we need to spend money to develop jets that don't even work when we could be spending that money to develop green energy and jobs at home to sustain them? Build the infrustructure? Steam, I tell ya.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 3, 2012 12:42:48 GMT -5
Onjel - I agree with so much of what you say. Actually, almost all of it. But no matter our disagreements, I think you and I and Erin could sit down and try to figure out a solution, because we don't have special interest groups funding us, or putting pressure on us, or bribing us to make sure that our decisions kept them in the money.So, what IS the solution and why isn't our Congress working for the people? I don't see the Republicans have a solution other than everyone (except the .01%) paying more. Hell, haven't the working class paid increasing more than their fair share in the past 10 years? Taxes aren't just income taxes. They come in the form of higher food prices because of higher gas prices, which the states add tax to - some states anyway. There are no loopholes for the 99% to take advantage of - not to the extent that the 1% have. Romney won't show his tax return 'until he's president' - and good luck getting it out of him them. They all lie through their teeth and excuse themselves later by saying they made a mistake. And here I'm talking about Fox News pundits.
But by then, the damage has been done because people believe the lie which has been said over and over, not the retraction, which is normallly only put out there once - and not on "page one". Our Constitution has been stepped all over. It almost makes me want to hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul. Almost. The Republicans, frankly, scare me. They almost passed a law in Mississippi - Initiative 26 - The Personhood Amendment -which would have provided legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of all human beings – at any stage of development.
And they would have deemed a fertilized egg a 'person'. I personally would not abort a fetus. But this law is wrong. It would only serve to oppress women even more than they already are.
It would make taking a birth control pill illegal. It would subject women who have miscarriages to investigation - and if they were married to someone who wanted to cast aspersions on them for their own purposes....well, remember when men had the right to put their wives in mental institutions? It regression. Pure and simple.
That is the current Republican party. No matter the flaws of the 'left', at least the Democratic Party promotes human and social justice. Not corporate welface.
And I know that the OWS seed group was a group of highly intelligent and gainfully employed young people who were inspired and moved by the protests in Spain and Greece - and there were some people from Spain who came over to show how to 'occupy'. But that is who must do it. Because the homeless and the 15% of the US that is in poverty don't have the means to do it. Most don't even realize that they CAN do anything to improve their plight. www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ Most of the Occupys attracted the homeless. In fact, the police would drop off the homeless, especially the mentally ill or alcoholic men, at the occupy sites, hoping to disrupt them and show the public how dirty the sites were. The Occupiers ended up feeding and clothing them because the police wouldn't respond to 911 calls about violent people at the camps. It's like they didn't have any rights just because they were protesting. And that is the way they've been treated all across the board. The police brutality is not the exception, it is the rule and it happens late at night, when it can't be easily filmed or seen live. We are still fighting for civil rights. But this time it isn't just for the civil rights of minorities and women, it's for the civil rights of all of us. Because they are being taken away from us under the guise of 'keeping us safe'. Sound familiar? They just passed the NDAA - on New Year's Eve! Anything that has to be passed in the dead of night and on a holiday, just screams 'evil'. www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-outrage-continues-to-grow-online-2012-1Time for the change Obama promised us. Which is the main reason we have the occupy protests. Those behind it supported Obama and the change he promised and they feel betrayed. And they are angry. And he knows it. Well, that's the Mississippi Republican party, not the entire party. Don't even get me started on abortion. Government shouldn't be involved in it, on either side. Period. The very people for whom Ms. Roe went to court aren't taking advantage of the "right to choose". The opinion was poorly written and not well-reasoned and frankly, fucked the whole thing up more than it helped. It just opened the door to the eventual sunset on the right to choose leaving the loophole open about when viability occurs. With medical advances, viability is earlier and earlier. All this means is you'll see more and more laws put on the books limiting abortion. Don't get me wrong. I don't care if someone wants to abort. It isn't my business and it certainly isn't the business of the men who started this whole shit. Most importantly, it isn't government's business. *sigh*I'd like to say I agree with the OWS people helping the homeless, but some did not. They actually began serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (New York) instead of the gourmet fare they were eating, in order to discourage homeless people from eating their food. Not very charitable. They also refused to share with the homeless, in some instances, to the point that the homeless just wanted the Occupiers to leave their parks and go away. Anecdotal evidence on both sides is rampant, but you can find videos of people asking the Occupiers to share with the homeless and hear the negative responses. It gives the whole movement a black eye, if you ask me. Again, the truly wealthy don't earn wages. That is what makes the difference in the taxes they pay or don't pay. They have investment income and capital gains, so they luck out. Anyone, but anyone, who earns a wage pays income tax, social security and medicare taxes, via withholding. At the end of the year, those making less money will invariably get money back, while those making more may or may not get money back. Some must withhold at a higher rate than others. I have a problem with someone who doesn't withhold and who files a tax return to get money back when they never paid into the system in the first place. One can do that with the earned income credit. I believe everyone who is paid a wage or has other income (not welfare, for that one can work and get paid, which I don't think is demeaning at all, but that's a different topic), I don't care how little you earn, must pay something. Even if it's $10.00 per year. That way, you "have skin in the game". I notice the president paid about 25% in income taxes, because of all of the loopholes he could take advantage of. That's not right, either.
The tax system has to be streamlined, loopholes eliminated and fewer brackets put in place to capture a larger base. We can't go on the way we are, that's for sure.Here, I have to disagree, as well. The democrats talk a good game, but they are just as big, if not bigger, with the crony capitalism as the repubs. That's why the largest political donors donate more to the democrat politicians than republican. Go to Open Secrets.org if you don't believe me. GE got away with paying zero taxes last year. Friends of the administration don't pay shit. The dems are just better at hiding their tendency to pick winners and losers (the winners are never the little guy, either) and lie about how much money they get from Wall Street, the corporations and the lawyers.
The bottom line is that without money, you can't get elected. I don't equate giving money with freedom of speech, so I think all elections should be publicly funded with each candidate getting the same amount to spend or waste as he or she sees fit. If the candidate drops out and there is money left (I'm dreaming, I know) then the money goes back into the pool. No private or corporate or union donations. Period. That would sure level the playing field.
Also? Cut salaries and/or make every single person in congress and government put their investments into escrow during their tenure and make it impossible for them to trade on the knowledge the gain while in office.If, by working class you mean people making up to and above $345,000, or so a year, then, yes you are right. The top 5%, with average income between $150,00 and $345,000 per year paid more than 58% of the taxes in 2009. The top 25% begins at an annual income level of around $66,000 and up and their total share was more than 87% of the taxes paid. The top 1% with incomes above $345,000 per year paid more than 36%. Again, these aren't my numbers. They're the IRS' numbers. It's the people who don't earn wages that aren't paying the tax rates on par with the rest of us. The Buffets, Soros', Kochs, Gates and the like. Most especially, the Wall Streeters. Change the code and change the rules, I say. Simplify it so we can all understand it and you don't need a million dollars to figure it out.A most heartfelt and hearty agreement with this statement. We'd make a much better go of it than any of those douches, period.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 12:45:03 GMT -5
livestream.com/owsnycLivestream of anti-NDAA demonstration (live at 11:44 Central time in NYC. Jan 3, 2011.) I am sure I am on a list somewhere. If I go missing, tho, just remember I am truly a good person and only concerned for my country and its people. And speak up for me.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 3, 2012 13:18:19 GMT -5
livestream.com/owsnycLivestream of anti-NDAA demonstration (live at 11:44 Central time in NYC. Jan 3, 2011.) I am sure I am on a list somewhere. If I go missing, tho, just remember I am truly a good person and only concerned for my country and its people. And speak up for me. You'd better not go missing. You are among the best of people. I'm with you on the scary nature of the feds monitoring people. Downright evil.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 14:02:07 GMT -5
Onjel - I agree with so much of what you say. Actually, almost all of it. But no matter our disagreements, I think you and I and Erin could sit down and try to figure out a solution, because we don't have special interest groups funding us, or putting pressure on us, or bribing us to make sure that our decisions kept them in the money.So, what IS the solution and why isn't our Congress working for the people? I don't see the Republicans have a solution other than everyone (except the .01%) paying more. Hell, haven't the working class paid increasing more than their fair share in the past 10 years? Taxes aren't just income taxes. They come in the form of higher food prices because of higher gas prices, which the states add tax to - some states anyway. There are no loopholes for the 99% to take advantage of - not to the extent that the 1% have. Romney won't show his tax return 'until he's president' - and good luck getting it out of him them. They all lie through their teeth and excuse themselves later by saying they made a mistake. And here I'm talking about Fox News pundits.
But by then, the damage has been done because people believe the lie which has been said over and over, not the retraction, which is normallly only put out there once - and not on "page one". Our Constitution has been stepped all over. It almost makes me want to hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul. Almost. The Republicans, frankly, scare me. They almost passed a law in Mississippi - Initiative 26 - The Personhood Amendment -which would have provided legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of all human beings – at any stage of development.
And they would have deemed a fertilized egg a 'person'. I personally would not abort a fetus. But this law is wrong. It would only serve to oppress women even more than they already are.
It would make taking a birth control pill illegal. It would subject women who have miscarriages to investigation - and if they were married to someone who wanted to cast aspersions on them for their own purposes....well, remember when men had the right to put their wives in mental institutions? It regression. Pure and simple.
That is the current Republican party. No matter the flaws of the 'left', at least the Democratic Party promotes human and social justice. Not corporate welface.
And I know that the OWS seed group was a group of highly intelligent and gainfully employed young people who were inspired and moved by the protests in Spain and Greece - and there were some people from Spain who came over to show how to 'occupy'. But that is who must do it. Because the homeless and the 15% of the US that is in poverty don't have the means to do it. Most don't even realize that they CAN do anything to improve their plight. www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ Most of the Occupys attracted the homeless. In fact, the police would drop off the homeless, especially the mentally ill or alcoholic men, at the occupy sites, hoping to disrupt them and show the public how dirty the sites were. The Occupiers ended up feeding and clothing them because the police wouldn't respond to 911 calls about violent people at the camps. It's like they didn't have any rights just because they were protesting. And that is the way they've been treated all across the board. The police brutality is not the exception, it is the rule and it happens late at night, when it can't be easily filmed or seen live. We are still fighting for civil rights. But this time it isn't just for the civil rights of minorities and women, it's for the civil rights of all of us. Because they are being taken away from us under the guise of 'keeping us safe'. Sound familiar? They just passed the NDAA - on New Year's Eve! Anything that has to be passed in the dead of night and on a holiday, just screams 'evil'. www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-outrage-continues-to-grow-online-2012-1Time for the change Obama promised us. Which is the main reason we have the occupy protests. Those behind it supported Obama and the change he promised and they feel betrayed. And they are angry. And he knows it. Well, that's the Mississippi Republican party, not the entire party. Don't even get me started on abortion. Government shouldn't be involved in it, on either side. Period. The very people for whom Ms. Roe went to court aren't taking advantage of the "right to choose". The opinion was poorly written and not well-reasoned and frankly, fucked the whole thing up more than it helped. It just opened the door to the eventual sunset on the right to choose leaving the loophole open about when viability occurs. With medical advances, viability is earlier and earlier. All this means is you'll see more and more laws put on the books limiting abortion. Don't get me wrong. I don't care if someone wants to abort. It isn't my business and it certainly isn't the business of the men who started this whole shit. Most importantly, it isn't government's business. *sigh*I'd like to say I agree with the OWS people helping the homeless, but some did not. They actually began serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (New York) instead of the gourmet fare they were eating, in order to discourage homeless people from eating their food. Not very charitable. They also refused to share with the homeless, in some instances, to the point that the homeless just wanted the Occupiers to leave their parks and go away. Anecdotal evidence on both sides is rampant, but you can find videos of people asking the Occupiers to share with the homeless and hear the negative responses. It gives the whole movement a black eye, if you ask me. Again, the truly wealthy don't earn wages. That is what makes the difference in the taxes they pay or don't pay. They have investment income and capital gains, so they luck out. Anyone, but anyone, who earns a wage pays income tax, social security and medicare taxes, via withholding. At the end of the year, those making less money will invariably get money back, while those making more may or may not get money back. Some must withhold at a higher rate than others. I have a problem with someone who doesn't withhold and who files a tax return to get money back when they never paid into the system in the first place. One can do that with the earned income credit. I believe everyone who is paid a wage or has other income (not welfare, for that one can work and get paid, which I don't think is demeaning at all, but that's a different topic), I don't care how little you earn, must pay something. Even if it's $10.00 per year. That way, you "have skin in the game". I notice the president paid about 25% in income taxes, because of all of the loopholes he could take advantage of. That's not right, either.
The tax system has to be streamlined, loopholes eliminated and fewer brackets put in place to capture a larger base. We can't go on the way we are, that's for sure.Here, I have to disagree, as well. The democrats talk a good game, but they are just as big, if not bigger, with the crony capitalism as the repubs. That's why the largest political donors donate more to the democrat politicians than republican. Go to Open Secrets.org if you don't believe me. GE got away with paying zero taxes last year. Friends of the administration don't pay shit. The dems are just better at hiding their tendency to pick winners and losers (the winners are never the little guy, either) and lie about how much money they get from Wall Street, the corporations and the lawyers.
The bottom line is that without money, you can't get elected. I don't equate giving money with freedom of speech, so I think all elections should be publicly funded with each candidate getting the same amount to spend or waste as he or she sees fit. If the candidate drops out and there is money left (I'm dreaming, I know) then the money goes back into the pool. No private or corporate or union donations. Period. That would sure level the playing field.
Also? Cut salaries and/or make every single person in congress and government put their investments into escrow during their tenure and make it impossible for them to trade on the knowledge the gain while in office.If, by working class you mean people making up to and above $345,000, or so a year, then, yes you are right. The top 5%, with average income between $150,00 and $345,000 per year paid more than 58% of the taxes in 2009. The top 25% begins at an annual income level of around $66,000 and up and their total share was more than 87% of the taxes paid. The top 1% with incomes above $345,000 per year paid more than 36%. Again, these aren't my numbers. They're the IRS' numbers. It's the people who don't earn wages that aren't paying the tax rates on par with the rest of us. The Buffets, Soros', Kochs, Gates and the like. Most especially, the Wall Streeters. Change the code and change the rules, I say. Simplify it so we can all understand it and you don't need a million dollars to figure it out.A most heartfelt and hearty agreement with this statement. We'd make a much better go of it than any of those douches, period.*hugs* You know? There aren't many people who are willing to talk about this stuff, let alone really think about it. I am all for simplifying the tax code. I am all for public funding of our elections, getting the special interest money OUT. Including churches. For elections to be fair, we need to have a better system of making our 'news' programs more accountable to the truth. Livestreaming and citizen journalists are a good start. Because when you see the truth first hand, all the spinning in the world can't deny it. I am all for people having a greater voice in the system - small d democracy. As far as the homeless not being fed the same food as the occupiers - well, I can see that happening, especially when you are down in the trenches day after day, trying to change the system, and sometimes some of the 'homeless' are actually not homeless, but people sent to infiltrate and make the occupiers look bad - then yeah, I can see if they are identified they would be given peanut butter and jelly - but at least they were fed. Not pepper sprayed. Plus, people donate money to the protesters to keep them on the street, and they would be the first to say to eat healthy meals on our dime - for the cause. "Gourmet" meals were donated by a restaurant for Thanksgiving - and everyone was fed in Liberty Park. But day to day - I can see where there would be times that some people would be feeling a bit selfish - giving up their lives for the cause - and treating themselves. But that is a minor thing. So minor as to be laughable, as to what is really going on. I mean, it's not like they turned the homeless away - and some of them are disrupters and not homeless at all. It's got to be hard to deal with it all. Anyway, the only way you are going to understand things is to watch it first hand, and not just read snippets on the internet or on the spinnews. As for taxes - my co-worker doesn't pay any taxes. He makes maybe 100,000 a year or so. He has 4 daughters and a wife. He is a Mormon, so probably tithes 10% of his paycheck. He owns a home. He lives simply, but has awesome health care, $250/mo for family policy thru our company. $5 co-pay. So, he doesn't have that expense. And he pays no taxes. Is it fair? Some would say no. Do I begrudge him? No. It is our system, and he is raising a family, is a good guy, saves for his future. He is the exemption. I pay around 15% after deductions. Would I agree to pay more? Sure. Would it hurt me? I guess define 'hurt'. No - I doubt if I'd starve or lose my house. I am the exemption. Now, my younger sons - neither work - their dad supports them. Sometimes they do odd jobs for cash money. Are they paying into the system? No. Not unless they spend money. Then they pay taxes which pays someone else's salary who pay income taxes...and then indirectly, they pay taxes. People who are barely subsisting, pay income taxes too - indirectly, yes, but they do. It's all a shell game.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 3, 2012 14:21:18 GMT -5
livestream.com/owsnycLivestream of anti-NDAA demonstration (live at 11:44 Central time in NYC. Jan 3, 2011.) I am sure I am on a list somewhere. If I go missing, tho, just remember I am truly a good person and only concerned for my country and its people. And speak up for me. You'd better not go missing. You are among the best of people. I'm with you on the scary nature of the feds monitoring people. Downright evil. Yeah - SOPA is next up. The stupid online piracy bill. Giving the government the right to block 'suspect' websites, etc. for using copywrited content. It's an in to monitoring all of our comings and goings - legally. Not that they aren't doing it illegally right now. *waves to feds* * I realize I am small potatoes and not on anybody's radar, but that is the point. This kind of regulation promotes an environment of fear, which makes people do all sorts of unnatural things under stress and pressure. So, is that the real purpose of all this civil rights overstepping? To make us all act out and into the hands of those in power who can then act like benvolent savior to protect those who toe the line and for whom the system works, from those of us who cry 'foul!'? ick
|
|