In regard to the 49%, what would be their fair share in your opinion?

 

9%

 

 

Seriously, the percent could be very low and for some at the lowest levels, I am ok with zero tax being paid. I would need to see the actual amount of income being earned by those in the 49% to determine what I believe they should pay.

A judge has ordered the Nashville PD to halt arrests.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111031/NEWS03/111031013/Federal-judge-orders-TN-stop-arresting-Occupy-Nashville-protesters

What I see is that tax revenues rise and fall commensurate with the strength of the economy. Revenues decline in recessions (2001, 2007) and rise when the economy cycles back around (it would be interesting to make one of these charts from the end of WWII to the present and overlay revenue, GDP, unemployment, and the top marginal tax rate). You and marvel say that tax cuts end recessions or otherwise stimulate the economy and thus lead to increased revenue. However, there was a recession in 1991, taxes were raised in 1993, and your chart begins in 1995 showing strong growth in revenue.

 

I am not saying they end recessions. I am saying they give businesses- big and small- incentives to start hiring more, invest more and consume more among other things which allows our economy to grow which will help get us out of the recession. I vehemently disagree with the notion that tax breaks alone is what makes or breaks an economy-although they do have a major factor as to who comes and goes. Other factors come into play such as environmental policies, manufacturing, ect. I just think that it is wrong for the Gov't to think that it is okay for it to take away on those who already give more than everyone else, simply because they make more money. When is it enough? When it gets to 39 percent that those on the left want, do you really think it will stop there? I think that is wrong. You are saying that the Government and bureaucrats can spend my money that I earned more wisely than I can. The 'tax the rich' scheme hasn't worked. I cannot fathom how people think that taxing the rich more and more and more is going to magically fix all of our problems.

 

Also, when you speak of the tax increase under Clinton, people often like to claim that those tax increases is what got us out of the recession but forget that the dot com boom happened around that time. That helped us get out of the mess more so than the tax cuts.

Obamas first stimulus was mostly a failure. The R's were smart to vote against. Their plan was better and more jobs would have been saved and new jobs created at a faster pace.

Something rare, I agree with you, I would also add that the Bush stimulus failed. This crisis is too big to say one party or one group of people were the cause. I just wish that those is DC will look at where this is all heading if they do not work to fix these situaitons that we now face.

For those that had a problem with the "racist Tea Party", I offer this little gem from one of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

 

Agreed, there are idiots on both sides.

 

And as Clyde stated:

Too many people are focusing on the messenger and ignoring the real issue. Every cause gets the loonies that show up and are always the loudest. Ignore that crap. Focus on the real issue.

Here's what I took from his piece:

 

Banks get really cheap money and sweet deals from the govt. Hard to screw it up. Yet they do and we have to bail them out.

 

Banks overextended themselves and bough crappy investments yet they get we create the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. Again, fixing their screwups. They got better rates than regional banks simply by being irresponsible.

 

He says people criticize those that want help with their foreclosures as wanting "something for nothing." Yet the banks have been getting that for decades. Two entities made bad decisions - one gets bailed out. The other doesn't.

 

Many people have suffered great harm as a result of acts committed by employees at Sachs et al when they knew what they were doing yet no one has paid for it other than the taxpayers.

 

His opinion is that this general atmosphere of "don't worry we'll fix any of your screwups and ignore any illegalities" has gotten to the point that people are highly upset.

Agreed 100%

Smoke and mirrors from this group. They can't say they oppose Obama because 90% of them voted for him. So his plan didn't work, and now they are mad, but still can't blame him. Must be somebody else.

I will tell you that I am a Democrat and I am not too fond of Obama, I can tell you first hand it was Chicago style politics out in Denver in 2008! But he is our president so I'll hope everyone tries to work with him and that he will have some good ideas. I have no problem blaming Obama, BUT, this crisis is too big just for Obama, it spans both parties and beyond! In order to fix it politics need to be put aside, as well as finger pointing.

 

I will also say this, if Obama is the democratic nominee and he is facing Mitt, it will be the first time I voted R in a presidential election!

Edited November 1, 201114 yr by SportsGuy41017

Looks like the progressive New York political party Working Families has run an ad on Craigslist, apparently the ad promises a salary for joining the OccupyWallStreet protests.

Not sure who this group is but almost all protesters are not getting paid. Only a few people are getting any type of pay, and that is for work (not prostesting) they may do which is very time consuming, but it's not much $. As far as I know this holds true in all of the major cities.

 

 

Glad to know that. Hopefully other rational people will come around to realizing that the bailout of the banking system was absolutely essential. Had a bunch of banks start failing, we'd have had a really, really big economic crisis.

I agree! I said from the beginning that if we do not bail out the banks things will get much, much worse.

 

This whole 99% stuff smells a bit like socialism to me. I heard one of the leaders of the Cincinnati movement on the radio and she was flat out scary in her discussion of how it's wrong that the 1% is so much better off than the 99%. I thought I was listening to some far left revolutionary figure from South America. I hope she doesn't represent the majority involved in the "occupation". If so, yikes!

She is not a leader, just one of the first organizers and has less to do with the masses and their concerns each passing day. She never once "occupied" at night, and that caused a huge problem. She is an activist, mainly for woman's issues. Part of the reason their is a huge divide with the local movement and why it is beginning to break up into two groups. One other person who enjoys speaking at these events is rubbing people the wrong way will be running for Senate in Ohio under a not to flattering party. But, at these events anyone can get up and speak, and it's hard to judge a group by a few people, or a few sound bites.

 

My beef with the Tea Party is mainly with the national figures, and as far as those who you see on TV who make all of them seen as possibly "racist" ect, I just hope that they are called out later and either change that persons point of view or tell them to keep quiet. This group is having the same troubles, the media LOVES to focus on anything or anyone who will create a story, stir things up. As I think Clyde hit on, these loonies are in all groups.

 

Since the second day of the "occupation" I have been working with the people locally as head of security, as Piatt Park is not one of the best places to be late at night. I have meet some very nice, as well as some very interesting people and see many points they are making, I am sure if I would ever attend a Tea Party rally I would see many of them as very nice and interesting as well.

 

President Clinton once said (it was similar to this) "They both love their country, they just have different ideas". You had the Tea Party upset a few years ago and now this group, but hey, at least both sides are trying to do something, which is more than I can say about most in DC.

 

But the key thing is in lines what Clyde mentioned "It's foolish to say that there are not huge problems in the financial sector when it comes to business practices, ethics, influence, and power. That's the main message that should be coming out of this."

 

Sorry for all the posts at once, but I have been busy doing the security work as well as campaigning for next weeks election, so this is a rare chance I had to get on BGP for more than just a few minutes.

 

Take Care!

No need to be concerned. I don't feel that way at all. Everyone has personal responsibility for their lot in life. If there have been tragic hurdles and challenges in the path to success, it is your job to fight through them. The obligation the higher income people carry is to ensure our government and society continue to be the greatest and the American Dream remains intact. Stuffing all the money you can into your own pockets does not do that.

 

Well said.

Agreed, there are idiots on both sides.

 

And as Clyde stated:

While I agree with you and with what Clyde said about too many people focusing on the messenger and ignoring the real issue, I have to say that many on this board didn't give the Tea Party the same respect.

I saw the protestors this weekend in NY, kinda sad they are camped too close to Ground Zero. Looked like the people who were there are the ones who missed out on the Vietnam peace marches. (flying the peace flag, looked more liked sixties wannabees with nothing to do.)

While I agree with you and with what Clyde said about too many people focusing on the messenger and ignoring the real issue, I have to say that many on this board didn't give the Tea Party the same respect.

 

Agreed.

Note the protestor wearing a Bennington University pullover. Now check the curriculum for this university in Vermont

[ATTACH]34904[/ATTACH]

 

If that's the bar we have to hurdle then no US citizen can ever raise their voice in dissent or protest.