I can see both sides as well, and like you have some things I agree and others I disagree with with both. I will say this...I'm NOT a fan of extremism in any way, shape or form. Both goups you mention are among the extremes. I do agree they bring attention to the issues though. And frankly, if both can galvanize the lazy, non-voting, non engaged citizen in America to take action by voting or being involved in solving their community's issues, it's a good thing. Whatever the impetus, Americans need to quit complaining and looking to everyone else and finger pointing while watching CNBC, FoxNews, etc. Get involved and make a difference.

 

:ylsuper:

For anyone interested, here is a declaration from them, kind of all over the place:

 

“As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

 

As one people, formerly… divided by the color of our skin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or lack thereof, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

 

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give CEO’s exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.

They have poisoned the food supply, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have continuously sought to end the rights of workers to negotiate their pay and make complaints about the safety of their workplace.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty book keeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

They have participated in a directly racist action by accepting the contract from the State of Georgia to murder Troy Davis.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

To the people of the world: We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

 

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy: We offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

 

Join us and make your voices heard!”

 

 

Where did you get this?

Most of them. I have no intention of hitting his blog again and creating income for him. Three from memory:

 

Something about paying less than an auto mechanic-you think he can back that up? Do you believe it?

 

He said the mechanic pays a higher rate than many on Wall St. Buffet paid an effective rate lower than many so it's not hard to believe that some fall into that category. This report says 25% of millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than 10.4M middle-class Americans.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/13/342705/report-25-percent-millionaires-lower-taxes/

He said the mechanic pays a higher rate than many on Wall St. Buffet paid an effective rate lower than many so it's not hard to believe that some fall into that category. This report says 25% of millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than 10.4M middle-class Americans.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/13/342705/report-25-percent-millionaires-lower-taxes/

What precentage of millionaires no longer draw a salary? Or at least one of any size?

He said the mechanic pays a higher rate than many on Wall St. Buffet paid an effective rate lower than many so it's not hard to believe that some fall into that category. This report says 25% of millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than 10.4M middle-class Americans.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/13/342705/report-25-percent-millionaires-lower-taxes/

 

If you are paying more than 17% effective rate you fit the definition of 'rich'. The only way to be at rate is to be above $250,000 or maybe single with no kids and no house and no charity donations. With the graduated tax rates you have be well into the 33 or 35% territory. This class warfare stuff is out of hand with what is obviously an incorrect statement by the author.

He said the mechanic pays a higher rate than many on Wall St. Buffet paid an effective rate lower than many so it's not hard to believe that some fall into that category. This report says 25% of millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than 10.4M middle-class Americans.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/13/342705/report-25-percent-millionaires-lower-taxes/

 

Since there's no data accumulated on occupations to make such a comparison, it's not a fact that can be proved or disproved. It's an opinion. You believe it, I doubt it. He writes a blog and is obviously in support of the movement. That's fine as long as we realize the source. I'm sure I could find a blog making as good an argument against the movement if I looked. In fact, Ann Coulter had an interesting comment about the movement walking right past Soros' apartment to protest at Murdoch's. Why is that if they are against the corruption on Wall Street? What does Murdoch have to do with Wall Street? Why not Soros since he's been a major player on Wall Street? Kind of makes you wonder what the true motivation is. What about their protesting dollars buying elections? Why not protest at the big unions and union leaders? Kind of interesting, isn't it?

 

And make no mistake, I'm all in favor of repealing the tax break for hedge fund managers. That's not investment income, that's normal taxable income imo.

What precentage of millionaires no longer draw a salary? Or at least one of any size?

 

I don't know the answer to that one. However, I did see an interesting statistic recently. In 1980, the top 1% of earners collected 10% of total income. Currently that top 1% is collecting about 25% of income. That strikes me as a rather feudal distribution of income - the serfs working the fields for the Dukes and Barons. I agree with this line from the edict listed above ... corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, . Wall Street does dictate to corporate America is such a way that profits rule over people. I have seen it first hand.

 

I am 100% a believer in capitalism but I don't believe in plundering people. A very large part of the top 1%'s income is due to the economic and government systems in place and the efforts of those working under them that bring their ideas to market and purchase the products they envision. The top 1% taking 25% of the income is plundery. I do not feel that is a fair distribution of the wealth. The income being generated by CEO's and highest level executives in corporate America is ridiculous. On this issue, I am in alignment with Occupy's efforts.

 

So what is the solution to this issue? I am very big on don't just complain, offer a solution to the problem. My solution to this issue is that Obama is right about tax rates being slanted too much in favor of the top earners. The Bush tax cuts went too far and it is time to let them expire.

If you are paying more than 17% effective rate you fit the definition of 'rich'. The only way to be at rate is to be above $250,000 or maybe single with no kids and no house and no charity donations. With the graduated tax rates you have be well into the 33 or 35% territory. This class warfare stuff is out of hand with what is obviously an incorrect statement by the author.

 

I didn't go back and read it but I'm pretty sure they are talking about more than just IRS income tax rates.

 

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. 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.

Since there's no data accumulated on occupations to make such a comparison, it's not a fact that can be proved or disproved. It's an opinion. You believe it, I doubt it. He writes a blog and is obviously in support of the movement. That's fine as long as we realize the source. I'm sure I could find a blog making as good an argument against the movement if I looked. In fact, Ann Coulter had an interesting comment about the movement walking right past Soros' apartment to protest at Murdoch's. Why is that if they are against the corruption on Wall Street? What does Murdoch have to do with Wall Street? Why not Soros since he's been a major player on Wall Street? Kind of makes you wonder what the true motivation is. What about their protesting dollars buying elections? Why not protest at the big unions and union leaders? Kind of interesting, isn't it?

 

And make no mistake, I'm all in favor of repealing the tax break for hedge fund managers. That's not investment income, that's normal taxable income imo.

 

I read "mechanic" as "middle class." Therefore,there is data.

 

If you're trying to convince me this is a D-leaning crowd save your efforts. That's obvious.

Since there's no data accumulated on occupations to make such a comparison, it's not a fact that can be proved or disproved. It's an opinion. You believe it, I doubt it. He writes a blog and is obviously in support of the movement. That's fine as long as we realize the source. I'm sure I could find a blog making as good an argument against the movement if I looked. In fact, Ann Coulter had an interesting comment about the movement walking right past Soros' apartment to protest at Murdoch's. Why is that if they are against the corruption on Wall Street? What does Murdoch have to do with Wall Street? Why not Soros since he's been a major player on Wall Street? Kind of makes you wonder what the true motivation is. What about their protesting dollars buying elections? Why not protest at the big unions and union leaders? Kind of interesting, isn't it?

 

And make no mistake, I'm all in favor of repealing the tax break for hedge fund managers. That's not investment income, that's normal taxable income imo.

 

 

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.

 

Which of his opinions that I've stated are incorrect in your opinion?

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.

 

Which of his opinions that I've stated are incorrect in your opinion?

 

Don't know enough about the banking industry to know and whether they should have been helped has been debated on here many times. Was it the right thing to do? I don't know. I just know that what I'm an expert in, he has no basis for his "facts" and he's probably wrong.

 

Do you think most of the protestors on wall street are there because of his opinions above or because of class envy? I know the way I lean because I doubt if too many of them could have cited his statements when they first showed up to protest. How does his saying class envy is not present square with their declaration?

I read "mechanic" as "middle class." Therefore,there is data.

 

If you're trying to convince me this is a D-leaning crowd save your efforts. That's obvious.

 

Sorry, I just read it the way he said it.

 

Everyone knows it's a D leaning crowd. I'm just curious if more is going on than meets the eye. I wonder why they're not occupying the White House, Congress, the Senate, etc. That's where the policies are created. Do they think their "declaration" is going to be resolved by wall street and Rupert Murchoch?

Where did you get this?

 

Saw it on a yahoo link.

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.

 

Which of his opinions that I've stated are incorrect in your opinion?

 

I will go with the highlighted as incorrect or certainly overstated. Yes financial institutions - private, public and government - used and abused the housing/property valuation bubble. But 'the harm' is very much self inflicted. A bank may be stupid enough to loan you 100% of your mortgage with a 530 credit rating and may even over value the property assesment to get the loan to close. But in the end - the consumer took the moneys, signed the papers and knew they were accountable. They the value of the house decreased, it went underwater and they could not sell it to even get out of it. Is that DIRECTLY the lending institutions fault. No. But - like the banks who were stuck with 'Toxic Assets' - code word for 'upside-down mortgages with no way to recover through forclosure' the did get the loans from the government. Individuals were stuck since they could not sell their house due to the lack of market. So many have 'just walked away' since they have no hope of even a short sale. So in that sense the government did help the banks - because if they did not they would have failed since everyone was holding 'toxic assets' and a domino effect would have occurred.

 

 

It would be interesting to see some of the truely harmed individuals got an AG in a state to determine if the lending institutions almost act in a RICO fashion to drive up the prices and create the bubble. If there was collusion to actually create a known bubble and cash out before the back side of it - or the artificially inflate things that would be something. Hitting the institutions with RICO would be interesting. But Fannie/Freddie are in the mix....so RICO charges will not likely happen.

 

I may have just shot my original answer above in the foot...but it is interesting angle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html