quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: <snip>

So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains. And we never even know we have the key. (Eagles song lyric)

Some things never change.

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: I agree, up to a point. IMO, not EVERYONE CAN be a farmer (or 'zookeeper'), But everyone has at least some degree of choice in their lives. The less time wasted playing victim, the more time they can (possibly) augment themself. They can at least move from one pen to another, with a better farmer. And not everyone actually WANTS to be a farmer, they may want the POWER , and $$$, but they lack the ambition or desire to put in the time sacrifice and effort...they want to get all the stuff AND be a fat, lazy slob.

Yeah, you're right. I think that's where the community comes in. In a perfect system, we would all just work for the good of everyone and perform things based on shear willingness. But because there exists laziness, greed, covetous thoughts, senses of entitlement, etc, that system can't work. In a similar perfect system, we could all work purely for our own needs, then stop when we hit the cusp of our need. But because there exists greed, want for community, and the fact that we are all different, that system can't work either. Not to mention in that particular scenario, society would never grow. Things would remain the same forever. So in reality I don't think we can ever truly escape the farmer vs. cattle idea on any large scale. At least, we can't as flawed humans... But, IMO, that's okay! We are trying to make the best out of it.

quote Originally posted by spark1: Counterpoint to previous:

So we should eat the rich?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: So we should eat the rich?

That was a revealing video.

Most of what President Obama said is true. There is one industrialized country (Korea) with lower taxes than the U.S. so it can be done. Japan’s taxes are about the same as the U.S. but all others are higher.

“Eat the Rich” offers a strawman argument because Michael Moore did not suggest that wealth be confiscated and redistributed (at least not in the clip shown). And to argue that returning tax rates to where they were before “temporarily” reduced to spur the economy by President Bush is in fact an increase is also stretching the truth.

Reducing taxes may temporarily goose the economy but it has the long term effect of increasing the deficit. Spending can’t be cut to offset lost tax revenue during a downward cycle without making matters worse.

And since 80 - 90% 20% of all U.S. income flows to the top 1% each year, a modest increase in rates in that sector can have a huge effect on total taxes paid. Not enough to erase the deficit but enough to reduce it by 1/3.

quote If all tax rates went back to their 1993-2000 averages, approximately $350 billion in additional taxes would have been collected in 2007.* Of this total, roughly one-third would come from each of the three categories delineated above. So the 1.2 million households in the top 1% of the income distribution can certainly not close the budget deficit by themselves. But they could get the US about one-third of the way there.

http://streetlightblog.blog...-at-top-to-make.html

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 09-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by spark1: Spending can’t be cut to offset lost tax revenue during a downward cycle without making matters worse.

quote Originally posted by spark1: “Eat the Rich” offers a strawman argument because Michael Moore did not suggest that wealth be confiscated and redistributed (at least not in the clip shown). And to argue that returning tax rates to where they were before “temporarily” reduced to spur the economy by President Bush is in fact an increase is also stretching the truth.

Your rebuttal is a strawman. It doesn't matter what Michael Moore suggested. Math shows that the "rich" don't have enough assets to balance the budget even if we confiscated and redistributed everything they have. It shows that the biggest problem is spending, not revenue. There simply isn't enough revenue to support the current spending, and raising taxes on the "rich" won't fix it. Any tax hikes are more money thrown down a bottomless pit if drastic spending cuts aren't also included. So far the only "cuts" that have happened have been to projected increases 10 years down the road. Meanwhile, we're spending over a $1 Trillion PER YEAR more than we take in. Cutting 1 Trillion or 3 Trillion over 10 years is useless when you spend between 1 and 2 Trillion more than you take in each year.

Here's an analogy to put it in perspective: http://www.daveramsey.com/a...eandmoney_budgeting/

quote The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt. What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

Government is spending 175% of it's revenue. So unless every single person in the country is willing to have their taxes nearly doubled, the spending cannot be sustained, let alone every pay down the debt.

quote Originally posted by spark1: And since 80 - 90% of all U.S. income flows to the top 1% each year, a modest increase in rates in that sector can have a huge effect on total taxes paid. Not enough to erase the deficit but enough to reduce it by 1/3.

You'll need some figures to back that up. I think you have confused "wealth" with "income."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution
1.92% of U.S. households make over $250,000 a year, for a total of 11.9% of U.S. income.

Reducing the deficit by 1/3rd only means we add $1 Trillion in new debt every year instead of $1.6 Trillion.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 09-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by theBDub: That was a revealing video.

It's a "cute" video like most of his others. Very slick presentation but short on reality. For instance the 3.7 Trillion he is suggesting the U.S. will spend this, I assume, is partially paid by revenues. Also who is suggesting that this kind of spending would have to be sustained or even that it must be paid for right away. I'm sure any administration would love to be able to run surpluses but in todays economy very few nations are able to do so. I haven't seen anyone suggest what the video proposes, cute distraction though.

I have a suggestion. Since it's the Democrats who wish to raise taxes, why doesn't Congress get Democratic voter registration records and tax the all the Democrats.

They're the ones who are clamoring for higher taxes while refusing to just sit down and write the check.

Oh no. They are only interested if they can use Other People's Money.
I would, OTOH, be more than happy to see my taxes increase when it is our national interest to prosecute combat somewhere in the world.

quote Originally posted by newf: It's a "cute" video like most of his others. Very slick presentation but short on reality. For instance the 3.7 Trillion he is suggesting the U.S. will spend this, I assume, is partially paid by revenues. Also who is suggesting that this kind of spending would have to be sustained or even that it must be paid for right away. I'm sure any administration would love to be able to run surpluses but in todays economy very few nations are able to do so. I haven't seen anyone suggest what the video proposes, cute distraction though.

The point is that spending far outweighs revenue, period, and that simply "taxing the rich" does little to nothing to pay back the deficit that is growing every second, but DOES do something to the economy.

Here are the latest figures on income distribution that I could find:



So it would be more accurate to say that the top 1% receive 20% of all income which is more than the bottom 50% receive.

And? A lot of trouble just to say "covet" isn't it?

quote Originally posted by spark1: Here are the latest figures on income distribution that I could find: So it would be more accurate to say that the top 1% receive 20% of all income which is more than the bottom 50% receive.

And they paid 38% of all income taxes. Sounds unfair to me... to the top 1%.

What I fear if present trends continue, is the pauperization of the country. Mexico, here we come!

quote Originally posted by spark1: Hide and watch.

An opinion, from a Bill Gross protege of Pacific Investment Management Company. Ya think they are unbiased, considering that for every Federal $ spent, $.40 is borrowed, either thru borrowing against SS Trust Fund or sale of Treasury notes, bonds, or T-bills, and many of those Treasury securities pass thru PIMCO in one form or another? PIMCO runs the largest bond fund in the world, and is the main clearinghouse bond company for buyers of soveriegn debt that are not a foriegn govt. They make a ton of friggin $$$ on that federal spending that is financed thru treasury sales. If Federal spending drops, so does borrowing and PIMCO is (was) and soon will be again--one of the largest domestic holders of US long term Treasury bonds. (even tho they are actually a foriegn based company) PIMCO and their investment arms are key players in the bond market, specifically Treasuries, and have teamed with The Fed in their recently announced decision to swap out short term US debt for longer term debt. PIMCO is the clearinghouse bond middleman.--always has been.

PIMCO stands to gain billions if US Treasury borrowing slows or stops, and their price drops. They sold (dumped) all their US long term dept back in March/April when debt was considered high value and risk and a bad bet going forward--in hopes of buyng it back later at a lower entry point with a better yield ofering, and that "later point" has now come with the Fed's decision to embark on a 'twist to yield curve' venture in their Treasury bond swap. Wanna guess who is gonna make a ton of $ off that? If you guessed PIMCO, you can go on to the next round.

People who claim that tax increases will lower the deficit NEVER address 2 facts.

1. Congress never passes up a chance to spend any increased revenue--ever.
2. Since 40 cents of every dollar spent by the federal govt is borrowed, the deficit never really decreases until that 40 cents drops to zero, as the Federal debt and the deficit are joined at the hip.

It's not so much the spending and borrowing that is causing the near term problems--it's the uncertainty coming out of Washington. It's becoming more and more obvious, that there is no real plan to reduce deficit/debt or a way to improve the economy via the Govt. Geithner and the US Treasury are completely out of options. Obama's jobs plan is ill recieved even by many in his own party as it is obvious to all that it is an election cycle ploy to increase approval while creating only temporary jobs at best, while the problem is long term. That, leaves only the Fed, and they have just 2 options left and have already announced they will use one of them, and it's never been tried before--much less proven to work--twisting the yield by dumping short term debt (T-bills) while acquiring and holding long term Treasury bonds. If that doesn't work, they have only the option of eliminating the (IOER--interest on excess reserves) which is interest paid by The Fed on funds parked at the overnight desk at the fed--something they are saving as a very last resort, as it can easily cause banks to have to once again seek more risky borrowers to lend to.

While I have serious doubts about us getting out of this anytime soon, here's what I would like to see happen:
1. Temporarily increase taxes by 20% on EVERYONE for a period of 3 years. That's every single earner in the US. Why everyone? Because we are all in this same sinking boat. Simultaneously cut Federal spending by 25% accross the board. No sacred cows--no untouchables--none. Every program gets cut. Wjhy every? Because we are all in the same sinking boat.
2. Fire Geithner and replace him with an economist that has no history and ties with Wall Street. He's been ineffective and a thorn in everyone's side, including Obama's.
3. Have Obama, Reid, Pelosi publicly aplogize to industry for pilloring them as "fat cats" for the last nearly 3 years and sincerely enlist their help in creating jobs and expanding the economic growth. Stop playing politics thru denigrating the only sector that can create real jobs. Had they done this in 2009, the economy would likely be on a true path to recovery by now, with increased tax revenues simply on the basis of increased payroll and corporate tax totals.
4. Have Ben Bernake on the same podium and annouce, that on a certain near term date, it will RAISE intrest rates by a full % point. (I'd love to see Bernake replaced as well, but mid stream is not the time to do so--it would cause even more volatility due to uncertainty till New Guy telegraphed his plans) Intentions to raise int rates on borrowing will prod those in industry who really want to borrow and expand (there are a lot) to go ahead and do so now before the rate increase goes into affect. The Fed then needs to butt out and let the markets and economy right itself. QE1 1nd 2 just made the rich richer, while doing nothing at all with the rest of economic growth. Industry and markets WILL right themselves if just left alone.
5. Publicly Urge by all means possible, that the EU go ahead and let Greece default. Put them in bankruptcy. Greece, more than any other thing is a drag on all global markets, economic growth, and confidence. Yes, the financial sector will take a hit, but they'll recover well enough, and the world as a whole will move ahead economically.

Barring all that happening, I propose increasing taxes on any and all those who support increasing taxes. They want it--they should bear the brunt of the pain--charity begins at home. Not gonna happen tho---they are only interested in seeing "Other People's Money" spent. The old saying comes to mind, which I personally cast aside in my suggestions above, which will probably raise ire among my fellow conservatives, but it is neccessary IMO:

"Conservatives Never want to increase anyone's taxes. Liberals Always want to increase taxes--on anyone except themselves".

quote Originally posted by spark1: Here are the latest figures on income distribution that I could find: So it would be more accurate to say that the top 1% receive 20% of all income which is more than the bottom 50% receive.

It's also more accurate to say the top 1% pay 38% of the income taxes, which is over 14 times as much as the bottom 50% pay.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Unless it's a New Orleans style death observance, people don't dance at wakes or funerals.

Yeah, I joke about dancing like a fool and all that... "while the city burns", but I know when the sh*t is ACTUALLY upon you, you shut up, and do what needs to be done. I just don't like to walk around being "Mr. Grim"

quote You are getting closer Rumor, but not quite there yet. Tech has only a small part in this, no more so than the housing boom, the auto boom, the great 5% growth of the 60s, the great wiki wak suburbia spread of the 50s, WHAT, propelled us to the apex of being the greatest wealth and economic growth engine on earth? One single event set this stage, and it had nothing to do with politics. What SET of events brought us down--(they had nothing to do with politics) Not the rich---not the poor--not the middle class. Think man--think!

I don't know - what single event WAS it?

Overpopulation + a generation or two of those who didn't have to work as shard to keep progressing? Breakdown of Society at the family and community levels? The whole "Credit" system (being able to buy stuff even when you didn't have the money to... so it became easy to over-extend ourselves?

Seems each big surge brings some advancement, then a collapse, then another advancement, sometimes building off SOME of what was done before, then another collapse...

Extend too far, line drawn too tightly, Stretched too thin...


Why am I frustrated? Honestly, because I've been trying to move since July, and between lawyer stuff, real estate stuff, Irene and other stuff, it's been delayed, and I keep encountering people in various degrees of suffering (most due to prisons of their own making, but not all) . Been struggling with my health a bit this past year, and other stuff every other human being has to deal with every day.

Things will be better in November.

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 09-28-2011).]

Ahh--I remember your health related posts--hope you are doing better soon.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Ahh--I remember your health related posts--hope you are doing better soon.

Yeah, I only complained about a few of them on here. There were some other *fun* things, but that's another story...

Anyway, so what do you consider to be the main cause of our (probable, eventual) downfall?

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: Why am I frustrated? Honestly, because I've been trying to move since July, and between lawyer stuff, real estate stuff, Irene and other stuff, it's been delayed, and I keep encountering people in various degrees of suffering (most due to prisons of their own making, but not all) . Been struggling with my health a bit this past year, and other stuff every other human being has to deal with every day.

I hope you can be stress free soon.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I hope you can be stress free soon.

Heh, nah man, I don't wanna be "stress free", I just want to get past this patch of crap, so I can get back to being somewhat viable.
There's no such thing as "stress free", and I don't think it's even a good state to strive for.
Just tons of needless paperwork and crap.
and I'm REALLY not looking to whine about it. Shhhhhhhh...it's just "stuff" (like everyone has to deal with)

Right now, I just wanna hear the 'one cause' from mj!

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 09-28-2011).]

From the eyes of a jailed journalist:

http://www.thirteen.org/met...a-jailed-journalist/

quote Originally posted by theBDub: And they paid 38% of all income taxes. Sounds unfair to me... to the top 1%.

And, what was their share of the total income of the US? I'm not saying they're not paying their share of taxes, but I also suspect they benefit more than others by our "representative" form of government(that normally represents those who can afford to pay (buy) lobbyists).

[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 09-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by carnut122: And, what was their share of the total income of the US? I'm not saying they're not paying their share of taxes, but I also suspect they benefit more than others by our "representative" form of government(that normally represents those who can afford to pay (buy) lobbyists).

That information is all there. They carried 20% of the total income, paid 38% of the total taxes, and paid a higher percentage per dollar than any other group.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: That information is all there. They carried 20% of the total income, paid 38% of the total taxes, and paid a higher percentage per dollar than any other group.

You are correct. I missed that.

A Massive Union Just Voted To Side With The Wall Street Protesters
Linette Lopez | Sep. 29, 2011, 10:30 AM | 4,890 | 32


Occupy wall street feed

According to Daily Kos, The New York Transit Workers Union (TWU) voted to support the Wall Street Protestors at their meeting last night.

A member of TWU Local 100 told a reporter that they would join the protest Friday at 4PM.

Here's more about them from their website:

The TWU has four main divisions: Railroad; Gaming; Airline; Transit; and Utility, University and Service. The Union has 114 autonomous locals representing over 200,000 members and retirees in 22 states around the country.

Occupy Wall Street has been picking up some decent support from unions in the past few days. Yesterday we reported that the Teamsters Union declared their support for protestors, and we also found out that the United Pilots Union had members at the protest demonstrating in uniform.

Today we learned the Industrial Workers of the World put a message of support on their website as well.

That's good for the protestors, sure, but the bottom line is whether or not these unions can produce bodies. Experience says that when they want to, unions can be quite good at doing that very thing.

And it seems that they're interested. In many of their statements of support, they say that their members are part of "The 99%" that Occupy Wall Street protestors keep talking about.

But what does that even mean? Naturally, we had to get to the bottom of it, so we found the We Are The 99% blog. It's made of a collection of pictures people holding up signs about how the sorry state of the economy has effected them. Here are some examples:

* A guy in a lab coat with a stethoscope around his neck (you can't see his face) holds a sign saying: "Ivy League medical student over 100,000 in debt committed to a life of helping the homeless and mentally ill. We are the 99%."
* Another girl holds a sign saying: "They say you can be anything you want if you work hard enough. The truth is you can only be what you want if you can pay enough. Only 20 and already drowning in debt because I want to follow my dreams. I am the 99%."
* Another woman holds up a sign saying: "I'm a single mom of four, college graduate 3.6 GPA, shelf stocker, I go hungry daily, I am the 99%. Occupy Wall Street.

Now for your protest update: When we checked in on the live feed around 9:30 this morning, the protestors were marching, playing drums and chanting: "All day, all week occupy Wall Street!"

A cop briefly interrupted them and told them that they were "invited" to stay on the sidewalk and the drumming continued to the sound of applause cheers of "YAY the sidewalk!"

Also, good old Michael Moore will be giving an interview from the protest tonight on MSNBC at 8 PM.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider....rstock#ixzz1ZMOci5od

quote Only 20 and already drowning in debt because I want to follow my dreams.

He should have followed reality instead. 2 years out of highschool and drowning in debt? Yeah--that's someone else's fault besides his own--sure it is. Why doesn't he just get a big "I COVET!! sign?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: He should have followed reality instead. 2 years out of highschool and drowning in debt? Yeah--that's someone else's fault besides his own--sure it is. Why doesn't he just get a big "I COVET!! sign?

RIGHT.

I'm drowning in debt too... about $30,000 under now. Student loans will do that to ya. But I chose a smart profession that can get me out of that. None of this B.S. of getting a psychology degree, getting out of school with $80k in debt, then complaining when you can't pay it off. DUH! You should have researched the job opportunities of your major before you "followed your dreams".

It's like people my age have no concept of money. Just some idealistic dream state.

Sometimes, you enter college, and things shift, and you need to switch Majors. It's not always so easy to know what's going to be the right choice- a lot can happen in 4-5 years.
Early 90's,I started as a Bio major, and saw $ was drying up for grants and research, and went into IT, which was on an upward trend. I sometimes regret that choice, but it's been 'good' for me (so far, anyway)


Well, the group in downtown NYC has grown by a LOT. It seems they aren't focusing on Wall Street at all, now, they are more into maintaining a presence. Not sure what the people who own that park are planning on doing, but as long as they allow them there, they will remain, imo...

Hard to say how many there are, but the past three days, it's been PACKED. If there were 500 initially, there are now at least 2,000 (4x the initial number)
But they are a lot less vocal (when I see them, at least)

MJ, what was the one event?