Who are the protesters behind Occupy Wall Street–and what do they want?

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
Who pays when a tax is imposed on goods? If an import duty has to be paid on tea, where does the money come from?

Also, you may have missed where I asked you how much taxation on the rich would you think fair, and what effect would that have on revenue?
Click to expand...
Does the point that the onus of funding govt was completely on the backs of business?

A self sufficient family farmer paid nothing in taxes.

Why do you ignore factual history and now argue in favor of no commerce taxes at all?

Do you even know anything about the 16th amendment to our constitution, say how or why it was enacted?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Is this active wartime today or not?

And during these wars you propose doing away completely with commerce taxation?

Please explain your rationale for such unprecedented notions.

jomoco
 
Morning Bell: Wall Street is the Wrong Place to Occupy
blog.heritage.org/2011/10/18/morning-bell-wall-street-is-the-wrong-place-to-occupy/
…
Ultimately, the protesters are expressing dissatisfaction with the direction America is heading. That dissatisfaction is shared by many Americans on the right, left, and center. America is headed in the wrong direction. But the answer is not to accelerate the present course of more government and less freedom. Instead we need to free ourselves from over intrusive government and trust the 99 percent to make their own decisions in a free marketplace.

The protesters are right to be frustrated with the state of the economy, the continued unemployment, and the lack of job creation and opportunity. But there’s a better way to solve the problem–the government should do no more harm, get out of the way, and let private, free enterprise work.
We Still Hold These Truths!
heritage.org/Multimedia/Video/2010/11/We-Still-Hold-These-Truths
 
Caldera said:
Morning Bell: Wall Street is the Wrong Place to Occupy
blog.heritage.org/2011/10/18/morning-bell-wall-street-is-the-wrong-place-to-occupy/
…
Ultimately, the protesters are expressing dissatisfaction with the direction America is heading. That dissatisfaction is shared by many Americans on the right, left, and center. America is headed in the wrong direction. But the answer is not to accelerate the present course of more government and less freedom. Instead we need to free ourselves from over intrusive government and trust the 99 percent to make their own decisions in a free marketplace.

The protesters are right to be frustrated with the state of the economy, the continued unemployment, and the lack of job creation and opportunity. But there’s a better way to solve the problem–the government should do no more harm, get out of the way, and let private, free enterprise work.
We Still Hold These Truths!
heritage.org/Multimedia/Video/2010/11/We-Still-Hold-These-Truths
Click to expand...
It is the only way, the American Way, evn.
 
jomoco said:
Does the point that the onus of funding govt was completely on the backs of business?

A self sufficient family farmer paid nothing in taxes.

Why do you ignore factual history and now argue in favor of no commerce taxes at all?

Do you even know anything about the 16th amendment to our constitution, say how or why it was enacted?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Is this active wartime today or not?

And during these wars you propose doing away completely with commerce taxation?

Please explain your rationale for such unprecedented notions.

jomoco
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you got all these ideas. I just asked you some questions about what you were saying.
 
St_Francis said:
I don’t know where you got all these ideas. I just asked you some questions about what you were saying.
Click to expand...
The point I’m making is that our country was founded and and our govt paid for on the backs of American commerce, not the individual citizens.

This mode of govt funding changed little until the 16th amendment became law, and individual income taxes were ADDED to the revenue stream on top of business tariffs and excise taxes. The Revenue Act of 1861 became law to pay for the civil war, it was the precursor to the 16th amendment becoming law in 1913 as WW1 loomed on the American horizon

. It may be of interest that 1913 was the same year the Federal Reserve Act was also made law. This took control of our country’s money/gold’s worth out of the hands of our elected official’s hands, placing that power into the hands of a private banking cartel, on whose board of directors would sit two govt advisors, comprising a small minority easily outvoted and over-ruled by the majority of private bankers sitting on the same board.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
The point I’m making is that our country was founded and and our govt paid for on the backs of American commerce, not the individual citizens.

This mode of govt funding changed little until the 16th amendment became law, and individual income taxes were ADDED to the revenue stream on top of business tariffs and excise taxes. The Revenue Act of 1861 became law to pay for the civil war, it was the precursor to the 16th amendment becoming law in 1913 as WW1 loomed on the American horizon

. It may be of interest that 1913 was the same year the Federal Reserve Act was also made law. This took control of our country’s money/gold’s worth out of the hands of our elected official’s hands, placing that power into the hands of a private banking cartel, on whose board of directors would sit two govt advisors, comprising a small minority easily outvoted and over-ruled by the majority of private bankers sitting on the same board

jomoco
Click to expand...
What I am trying to find out from you is this:
  1. (the easy one) How much do you think the federal government shoulld tax “the rich,” and what effect do yiu think that would have on the federal income?
And 2. Given that costs are passed along to consumers, how much should the federal government tax corporations, and what effect do you think that would have on revenues?

I ask both these questions because I gathered from your posts that you are in favor of the federal government’s increasing taxes on both these groups of taxpayers.

What all that other stuff had to do with anything, I don’t know.
 
jomoco said:
The point I’m making is that our country was founded and and our govt paid for on the backs of American commerce, not the individual citizens.

This mode of govt funding changed little until the 16th amendment became law, and individual income taxes were ADDED to the revenue stream on top of business tariffs and excise taxes.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised to learn the federal government was actually quite small before the 16th amendment. It was only when additional taxes were raised to pay off debt that government took the money and grew instead of paying off debtors.
 
St_Francis said:
What I am trying to find out from you is this:
  1. (the easy one) How much do you think the federal government shoulld tax “the rich,” and what effect do yiu think that would have on the federal income?
And 2. Given that costs are passed along to consumers, how much should the federal government tax corporations, and what effect do you think that would have on revenues?

I ask both these questions because I gathered from your posts that you are in favor of the federal government’s increasing taxes on both these groups of taxpayers.

What all that other stuff had to do with anything, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Let’s take point 2.

Tying govt revenue income to corps assures that the health of one reflects the health of the other. The more robust the corp’s revenue stream, the more robust the govt’s coffers.

Taxing the daylights out of wars, corporately speaking, assures an extremely short duration high efficiency war fought and won quickly.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
Let’s take point 2.

Tying govt revenue income to corps assures that the health of one reflects the health of the other. The more robust the corp’s revenue stream, the more robust the govt’s coffers.
Click to expand...
Until the taxes go up so high that people can’t afford the prices and cut back, which hurts the corporation, which then pays fewer taxes, which causes the government to have less money to help those laid off by the downward spkral started by the taxes’ being too high.

(Personally, I am for the Fair Tax)

Qquoye]Taxing the daylights out of wars, corporately speaking, assures an extremely short duration high efficiency war fought and won quickly.
We’re taxing wars now? Anyway, I cannot imagine that wars would be fought any differently because of high taxes on corporations. It hasn’t worked before–we just went into debt. There are just some things you can’t speed up.
 
jomoco said:
Taxing the daylights out of wars, corporately speaking, assures an extremely short duration high efficiency war fought and won quickly.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Lets try that with poor people. Tax the daylights out of them and maybe they’ll quit being so poor.
 
SamH said:
Lets try that with poor people. Tax the daylights out of them and maybe they’ll quit being so poor.
Click to expand...
Listen guys, I fully realise you are tea party proponents.

I’m just pointing out that you haven’t got a leg to stand on in terms of successful historical precedent without using bush jr’s unprecedented taxcuts during a hot shooting war.

You guys believe in cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires during wartime, I get it.

The OWS protesters and I disagree with you. We wish to return to tax policies with historical precedent, backed up by facts that proved their effectiveness by winning wars and benefitting the middle and lower classes.

It’s called progressive taxation of the wealthy, and it’s as American as apple pie friends.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
Listen guys, I fully realise you are tea party proponents.

I’m just pointing out that you haven’t got a leg to stand on in terms of successful historical precedent without using bush jr’s unprecedented taxcuts during a hot shooting war.

You guys believe in cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires during wartime, I get it.

The OWS protesters and I disagree with you. We wish to return to tax policies with historical precedent, backed up by facts that proved their effectiveness by winning wars and benefitting the middle and lower classes.

It’s called progressive taxation of the wealthy, and it’s as American as apple pie friends.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Who is against progressive taxes? We have progressive taxes, and no one is saying to get rid of that.

But we also know that when taxes are raised beyond a certain level, people react to that by doing things like investing in tax-free bonds.

So there is a point beyond which we should not raise taxes. Where is that point? No one really knows. Maybe we can raise taxes some now, thn again, maybe not.

This article explains the results of the tax cuts better than I can. It first has the ten myths with short replies, but keep going because below that there are much fuller replies which explain more thoroughly.

The problem is that we can’t have knee-jerk, feel-good reactions. We have to assess what is happening, and carefully consider the results of what we do. Spending hundreds of billions in a panic to try to fix things is ridiculous. It was dumb the first time in 08, and it’s even dumber now that it didn’t work before. Definition of insanity and all that…
 
nathan_oc said:
It’s not 1%, It’s 53% that pay for the other 47% that pay no federal income taxes.
Code: 
                       We Are The 53%
                             [the53.tumblr.com/](http://the53.tumblr.com/)
Click to expand...
This is wonderful. This is the America I know and love. I have hope for us, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ. These people are making the 53% pretty angry.

I came from a poor background. But we were too proud to take charity. I started working at age 12, had part time jobs all the way through high school, and went to work full time after high school because there was no money for college. I got better and better jobs because of my own effort, not because someone handed me anything. Eventually, I did go to college, at night after work. I worked my way through college, it took me 10 years total but I came out with a BA and NO DEBT. My husband and I have paid our bills from the start, and he has been unemployed for only a short amount of time several years ago. It would kill him to take handouts from the government, because we know it ultimately comes from the pockets of our friends, family and neighbors. We pay for our cars in cash, because we are frugal, and don’t buy things we don’t need. We keep our cars until we can’t drive them any longer. Our teenage sons did not get cars for their 16th birthday!

My husband has worked away from home 2 weeks of every month this entire year, and was away for 2 mos. over the summer. You are seriously going to tell me that someone else deserves more of what he has earned? We already support a heck of a lot of moochers who could work to support themselves but the politicians need their votes and the best way to achieve that is to get them on the payroll and keep them there.

This sad little band of protesters - squatters…This is the face of communism, my friends. The language of “corporate greed,” “the right of work,” etc. is straight from the communists. We have been put to sleep, while the communists kept worming their way into our institutes of learning and our media. We really need to do a lot of work, and get this mentality OUT of our nation forever.
 
St_Francis said:
**Who is against progressive taxes? We have progressive taxes, and no one is saying to get rid of that.
**
.
Click to expand...
I am against progressive taxation. I would like to get rid of it. Punishing success is a sure way to discourage success. There is no reason people who are making money should have more of their property taken away from them. Wealth is not morally wrong, so why punish people who acquire it? What makes it OK to take more of the property of people who have more? What if we did the reverse, and took everything the poor have? Would that make sense? Please don’t tell me “Well, they HAVE more, so they should PAY more.” that is simply circular and says nothing about WHY we take more of the property of people who are producing.
 
St_Francis said:
The problem is that we can’t have knee-jerk, feel-good reactions. We have to assess what is happening, and carefully consider the results of what we do. Spending hundreds of billions in a panic to try to fix things is ridiculous. It was dumb the first time in 08, and it’s even dumber now that it didn’t work before. Definition of insanity and all that…
Click to expand...
Who was prez in 08 when TARP was enacted?

Atleast admit that both our political parties rep and dem have responsibility for this mess.

Clinton allowed China into the WTO, signed the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, replacing it with Gramm Leach Bliley just prior to Bush jr taking office. He signed NAFTA into law. All these very bad things done by Clinton screwed over millions of American laborers. History will record his treachery against the base of his own party accordingly along with obama signing “free trade” agreements with panama, s korea and columbia.

All those so called “Free Trade” agreements are pure poison for the vast majority of American laborers and their families. The OWS movement knows that fact and will rub obama, bush and clinton’s nose in their perfidy in office.

jomoco
 
Some kind of tax reform in America would be good. Something simpler, and without so many loopholes that companies with expensive accountants can learn how to jump through.

The real problem though is out of control spending. There aren’t enough rich in the country that can generate the kind of revenue needed to feed the wild levels of government spending.
Canada had the same problem about a decade ago, where the triple A rating was downgraded too. A few measures were taken to get spending under control, nothing too draconian, maybe not even enough as the baby boomers start retiring and drawing down any of the surplus of the system, but it was enough that Canada is not going through the same thing as America right now.

Oh, and another thing, Alberta and conservative politicians never allowed the Oils Sands to be shut down, like Obama did to the Gulf and greens have done to much of the American oil industry. It makes a big, big difference that Canadians have fought the urge to believe that greatest love of all is for people to lay down their lives for the sake of a tree. A little perspective is in order when it comes to weight the costs and the benefits of these kinds of decisions.

I am pretty sure that the OWS people don’t quite get those connections yet.
Maybe they never will.🤷
 
jomoco said:
Who was prez in 08 when TARP was enacted?

Atleast admit that both our political parties rep and dem have responsibility for this mess.

Clinton allowed China into the WTO, signed the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, replacing it with Gramm Leach Bliley just prior to Bush jr taking office. He signed NAFTA into law. All these very bad things done by Clinton screwed over millions of American laborers. History will record his treachery against the base of his own party accordingly along with obama signing “free trade” agreements with panama, s korea and columbia.

All those so called “Free Trade” agreements are pure poison for the vast majority of American laborers and their families. The OWS movement knows that fact and will rub obama, bush and clinton’s nose in their perfidy in office.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Third party?
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
TARP losses are estimated to be less than the Saving and Loans meltdown in previous years.

Tea Party protests of course were the first to get steamed over these loans even being made. On the other hand, even if it is in general a bad policy to reward poor business practices in a purely capitalistic or Dawininian sense of survival of the fittest, there is an argument to be made that by staving off a financial meltdown of the scale that was threatening in 2008, a cost of 19 billion would be a small price to pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top