Occupy Wall Street

[johnnyrodgers20]

To address the OP issue with a double standard I'll bring up the already mentioned Tea Party. These people, much in the same likes as OWS, are upset with the current government and they, like every person in America has the right to, are protesting. Because they're more Republican in nature, they're going to be praised by the right-wing media. Now this same right-wing media is demeaning this other protest group [OWS] for doing some of the same exact things the Tea Party is doing? There's your double standard.

 

And yes, the left-wing media is doing the same too. Like carlfense said, it's a matter of perspective.

 

Name the right wing media. The major networks, the big three are very liberal,so is CNN. The only TV network that is conservative is Fox and as I stated earlier, everyone is bring up news analysts not anchors or reporters!!

[johnnyrodgers20]

One major difference, the people you listed on fox are news analysts. They are paid to give THEIR OPINION. The other news orgs are news anchors and should give the news in an unbiased format. You are comparing apple to oranges. If you said the fox news analysts and people like Maddow and Oberman then that would have been correct.

 

They all give their opinions.

 

However the opinions of some commentators correspond with facts, and others do not.

 

But you know and I know reporters and anchor men are supposed to give you the unbiased news. If you are under the premise that these guys ar ejsut giving you facts then you have a certain amount of trust that they will do the right thing. If you see an analyst like Hannity or Maddow you know their program is going to have THEIR OPINION, big difference.

[Tulsa-Husker]

CB, pre 1980s was full of Nixonian price and wage controls, high inflation and other Jimmy Carter issues. The 1970s was a terrible time economically - we got off the gold standard, rising gas prices, etc. Recessions were a normal way of life. Some of that was fuel by the oil crisis (no pun intended) - gas going way up to $1/gal. A lot of people remember the 1950s as being 'Happy Days' - I wouldn't know but it was at the height of post war manufacturing and housing booms. We were the world's main manufacturer back then. That goes back to making manufacturing a back bone of our economy. I'm almost convinced that our unhappy days came about due to the increased globalization of our large companies and the resultant outsourcing of our manufacturing base. I would bet that if we had a strong manufacturing base it wouldn't really matter who was president - the economy would hum along inspite of the president. It seems like a foregone conclusion that we just have to accept a reduced manufacturing sector. I would like to see all presidential candidates address this issue more clearly, including our campaigner in chief with some solid comprensive plans (tax policies included) on restoring manufacturing. The best way to close the income gap is to create good jobs that don't require Masters Degrees that pay well - typically in the past - these were manufacturing jobs. I know Newt has some good ideas on this - I'd like to see more discussions from the other guys and gal.

 

The Reagan years were not an economic boom, that didn't happen until the fall of the Soviets when we were able to exploit foreign labor and markets while still keeping most Americans gainfully enmployed.

 

Now that foreigners can do these middle class jobs,capitalism has sent them abroad at a pace where we could not recreate new jobs.

 

Sub - you've read too much anti-Reagan revisionist papers. Not a boom - not sure where you were sitting in the later 1970s and the 1980s but the Reagan economy produced the longest and largest sustained job growth in many decades. The fall of Soviet Russia didn't occur until well into Bush #1's term - as a result of Reagan's policies that drove a wedge into the Soviet economy in several ways. (See Reagan's Secret War - one book detailing how this occured)

Laffer: Reaganomics Created 21 Million Jobs

 

 

 

 

Friday, 11 Feb 2011 08:40 AM

By Greg Brown

 

 

 

 

Art Laffer, the economist

e and adviser to President Ronald Reagan, says the ultimate lesson of Reaganomics was that the right policies can create jobs — exactly what the economy needs now. Amid stagflation, high unemployment, and an oil s shock, Reagan took the highly criticized position that tax cuts were the answer. He slashed the top income tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent and the lowest rate to 11 percent from 14 percent.

 

 

Simultaneously, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker embarked on a tight-money policy designed to rein in inflation, moving the inflation rate from a staggering 13.5 percent in 1981 down to 3.2 percent just two years later.

 

“What the Reagan Revolution did was to move America toward lower, flatter tax rates, sound money, freer trade, and less regulation,” Laffer writes in The Wall Street Journal. “The key to Reaganomics was to change people's behavior with respect to working, investing, and producing.”

 

Eventually, the higher tax rate on non-wage income (like investments) fell to 28 percent from 70 percent. Corporate tax rates fell, too.

 

“Changing tax rates changed behavior, and changed behavior affected tax revenues. Reagan understood that lowering tax rates led to static revenue losses,” Laffer writes. “But he also understood that lowering tax rates also increased taxable income, whether by increasing output or by causing less use of tax shelters and less tax cheating.”

 

The result: 21 million jobs created between December 1982 and June 1990, Laffer writes.

 

“The true lesson to be learned from the Reagan presidency is that good economics isn't Republican or Democrat, right-wing or left-wing, liberal or conservative. It's simply good economics,” Laffer writes.

 

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Barack Obama said he wants to cut the top corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent but also close “loopholes” enjoyed by many industries to keep the cuts “revenue neutral.”

 

"You know how it goes: because of various loopholes and carve-outs that have built up over the years, some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. Companies are taxed heavily for making investments with equity; yet the tax code actually pays companies to invest using leverage," Obama told a chamber audience.

 

"As a result, too many businesses end up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or what their factory produces. This puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. That's why I want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it, so that it doesn't add a dime to our deficit. And I am asking for your help in this fight," he said.

http://www.moneynews...02/11/id/385725



[carlfense]

Ah, Reagan. That Conservative icon who:

 

1. Raised taxes 7 out of 8 years in office

2. Negotiated with terrorists

3. Tripled the budget deficit

4. Ballooned the size of the federal government

5. Granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants

6. Illegally funneled arms to Iran

 

The list goes on and on. I guess the GOP has to find someone to mythologize and the list of presidents from that party in recent memory is pretty damn bleak.

[Sub-Husker]

Name the right wing media. The major networks, the big three are very liberal,so is CNN. The only TV network that is conservative is Fox and as I stated earlier, everyone is bring up news analysts not anchors or reporters!!

 

LMAO... except for Fox they are all socially liberal... but on finiance and foreign policy they are all right wing.

[Sub-Husker]

But you know and I know reporters and anchor men are supposed to give you the unbiased news. If you are under the premise that these guys ar ejsut giving you facts then you have a certain amount of trust that they will do the right thing. If you see an analyst like Hannity or Maddow you know their program is going to have THEIR OPINION, big difference.

 

It's human nature... they will all include bias.

 

And I'll take Maddow's opinions, they are based in reality and backed by facts.

[Sub-Husker]

Sub - you've read too much anti-Reagan revisionist papers. Not a boom - not sure where you were sitting in the later 1970s and the 1980s but the Reagan economy produced the longest and largest sustained job growth in many decades. The fall of Soviet Russia didn't occur until well into Bush #1's term - as a result of Reagan's policies that drove a wedge into the Soviet economy in several ways. (See Reagan's Secret War - one book detailing how this occured)

 

Reagan started spending like mad and created a huge defecit.

 

That, and through deregulation he started building the house of cards that had recently collapsed.

 

Laffer: Reaganomics Created 21 Million Jobs

 

Sorry, Laugher and his ridiculous curve have no credibility.

[Sub-Husker]

Ah, Reagan. That Conservative icon who:

 

1. Raised taxes 7 out of 8 years in office

2. Negotiated with terrorists

3. Tripled the budget deficit

4. Ballooned the size of the federal government

5. Granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants

6. Illegally funneled arms to Iran

 

The list goes on and on. I guess the GOP has to find someone to mythologize and the list of presidents from that party in recent memory is pretty damn bleak.

 

He also armed Saddam like mad...

 

Did nothing when the USS Stark was hit...

 

And left several hundred marines vulnerable to attack in Lebanon...

[Calla]

[Calla]

And knappic, that's cool you have a job. Now look at the rest of the country. Don't extrapolate your personal situation to make a generalization.

 

I have yet to talk to an Occupier here in Lincoln that doesn't have a job. I don't believe joblessness is a prerequisite for Occupying.

 

When I covered the Occupy protest in Minnesota I found some interesting stats on just who was there participating in the protest.

http://pncminnesota.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/occupymn-who-are-the-99/

 

Here's a snip:

 

Education level:

High School diploma only – 11%

Currently in college – 27%

Associates degree/VoTech – 9%

BA/BS degree – 35%

Masters – 10%

PhD – 8%

 

Political affiliation:

None – 47%

DFL – 35%

GOP – 0%

Other third party(ies) – 18%

 

Employment status:

Employed (includes self-employed) – 64%

Unemployed – 15%

Students (full time) – 13%

Retired – 8%

 

Household income (gross)

NOTE: the income brackets are set up to show where attendees household income breaks as a percentile)

$0 – $24,000 – 36%

$25,000 – $67,000 – 21%

$68,000 – $99,000 – 13% ($68,000 and higher is the ‘richest’ top 25%)

$100,000 – $113,000 – 12% ($100,000 and higher is the ‘richest’ top 15%)

$114,000 – 379,000 – 16% ($114,000 and higher is the ‘richest’ top 10%)

$380,000 – 1,500,000 – 2% ($350,000 and higher is the ‘richest’ top 1%)

$1,600,000 + – 0% ($1,600,000 and higher is the ‘richest’ top 0.1%)

[Cactusboy]

 

I think I can buy into that. But I'll say I think most OWSers only want a bigger govt when necessary/temporarily. Meaning...when it's shown that small govt/bad/not enough regulation isn't doing the job...and big biz is exploiting it and the people Govt needs to step up and correct it. So...if big biz can/could behave they'd be ok w/ small govt. Probably like w/ kids. If they can be home alone and be good they don't need a babysitter...or if they can go out and behave and get home at a respectful time they don't need a curfew. BUT if they show they can't behave you need to step up as a parent. Sure there are holes in that analogy but you should see the point. Big biz has shown they can't be trusted so the consequences should be to have more oversight on them.

[Cactusboy]

Not to sidetrack, but Calla, it seems the TP in MN is pretty reasonable. I love this old clip of Franken talking to them at the state fair.

 

 

another one.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnCKfo_u6lQ

[Calla]

 

 

In my opinion and per the opinions of most OWS demonstrators, we have to much capitalism that is starting to overlap with facsism, and not enough socialism (for the people) in the mix. With the bank bailouts, there is plenty of socialism for the banks that were deemed too big to fail.

 

Actually what we currently have is the worst of both Socialism and Capitalism. We keep profits private, but the losses are underwritten by the government(the people). And we encourage monopolies in vital industries. This has been our problem and we need to correct it.

 

What we used to have, for a brief time, was some of the better parts of both systems. Profits and losses were private and created a Darwinian system of business. The government stepped in primarily to protect intellectual property and to break up monopolies. We had a few industries that are Socialized, but not many. (Security/Police, interstate roads, etc) We need to either return to that (that is my preference) or move forward to real Socialism where if the Government is on the dime for losses, it also gets the profits. But either, at this point, is preferable to the bassackwards system we have going now.

[carlfense]

I've attended and offered material support to the local Occupy movement. I did so because I agree that there is a partnership between people with money and our elected officials and that this partnership is hurting our country. It needs to be pruned back. I also very strongly support citizens' right to peaceful assembly and oppose all the BS permit requirements that are meant to make it extremely difficult for citizens to exercise that right........

 

Not until they get a handle on this dangerous sub-group within the movement that sees fellow protestors as expendable PR opportunities.

Calla, thank you for your insightful analysis, none of this surprises me one bit. People of this ilk enjoy inciting violence to gain exposure and sympathy as if they are some sort of victim. Sadpeople, for sure.

 

The problem you are going to have is that in this forum, you have to link it to an Internet article/blog/op-ed/propaganda piece for it to have any validity. Common sense, simple intelligence, and real life experience be damned. Because as everyone knows, if it’s on the internet, it’s REAL, and if it’s not on the net, it’s cannot under any circumstances be real.

 

Dr. King and his protestors were assembling peacefully and were beaten, arrested and prosecuted by the police because the police disagreed with their agenda - NOT because they had broken a law. There is a direct parallel between Dr. King's movement and this movement, and it's not even a leap in logic. Two groups of peaceful protestors rousted by the cops. This isn't a situation of "I can't see the parallel," it's clearly, "I don't want to see the parallel." Remove your head from the sand and see what's really going on.

 

74, are you even bothering to read the articles in your google results? You should. They paint a FAR different picture than the one you're peddling.

 

Knapp, did I read every single one of those, no, but I thumbed through them enough to get some details. Do I care if some of the articles support the OWS movement? No, not really, because I don’t have an agenda either for or against them. Did I read your linked articles to the Dr. King situation, no. I understand what his movement did, how they were treated, etc, I learned that many times, years ago in numerous history classes. Would the article you linked offer more information and possibly a different perspective, I’m sure.

 

Frankly, and this is by no means meant to be a shot at you, I have a life and I don’t have the time to sit behind a computer all day reading articles. Doing things like putting in my 40+ hours per week, being a taxpayer, home renovations, cooking, cleaning, yard work, paying bills, going to the gym 4 to 5 days a week, a social life outside of the internet, hunting, fishing, time with family and friends, and spending the 3 hours a week I actually watch TV on a Husker game either more important or more enjoyable to me. I catch my news on the run, usually while making dinner, putting together my lunch for the next day, or getting my work and gym clothes for the next day lined up and put together. As you may have noticed, I don’t post much on here since HB was blocked from work. I rarely do it at night or weekends, and when I do post during the day, it’s from my droid, which is slow and cumbersome. I don’t have time for all that.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to get my yard cleaned up before midnight. Have a wonderful evening.

Like clockwork.

 

Summary: I have the time to make long rambling posts about how busy I am but if you ask me for a source I'm suddenly too busy again.

[Sub-Husker]

I had been critical of the Tea Party because of the most of them support the same pro-corporate agenda that some of their wealthy backers support (Kochs, Armey, etc).

 

I have also been critical because in two of the three events I had been to I had witnessed racism by participants.

 

However I have also heard about some unsavory behavior at OWS events too. No organization can control who shows up at an open event.