how come there have been so few updates recently? is stuff secretly happening? even though i'm not american i'm quite interested in seeing what is happening here .
you have to go get the Info yourself, i've been watching mainstream media outlets and the way they go about it, is thru like sort of Narratives. They pick out the dumb and crazy and interview them following a strict Narrative. It's hilarious to watch, as well as really sad.
apart from that the movement is still very much alive.
That was one day before (Oct 14th) the "global occupation date" of Oct 15th. It IS a positive article, and it has a purpose but the narrative has changed repeatedly since...
He basically just trolled everyone that is legitimately unemployed.
"You're pouting cause you don't have a job? Can't eat? Can't support your family? Can't pay your debt? Spiraling down into depression and bankruptcy? Cry moar, wa wa wa wa wa. I have a job and my fist is jammed so far up my own ass I don't give a fuck."
I have family still struggling with these issues and to read something like this is infuriating.
1) News Corp investors are severely pissed off at Murdoch, if it wasn't for his controlling stake he would have been ousted. Occupy looks to have a wide swath of support with the tea party starting to tune in they might see their base shift away. They could only play the "yea but what do they want" card so long before the actual message got around them.
When your investors, a huge chunk of the public and some key figures in governments around the world are against you, its not a wise time to be poking people in the eyes with sticks. If they do it right they can get everyone under the foxtard umbrella...
2) It's an opinion piece that was quickly buried. They'll drag it up as an example of their fair and balanced reporting. "See we did a pro occupy piece..." (along with 800 trash pieces).
An informative and entertaining watch. Helpful to point someone who refuses to educate themselves to. Perhaps they will listen to a cartoon? *shrug* http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/
He however, misses the point. Many non profits like the aclu realize they couldnt lobby either. They are ok with it as long as the people can.
Hrm... Not that I particularly like the animated video, but that guy's worse. He basically oversimplifies, strawmans, or deliberately misinterprets her points to make his own. For instance he said she implied that everything corporations want goes against what is best for the people. She never implied that. She said that what people want will take a backseat as long as corporation can spend millions to influence politicians. Quite a different concept.
He also does exactly what she says and cites crap without any evidence. "The larger the government, the more incentive to spend lots to lobby it". No backing statistics or info that that's the case, just some quote he picked up. And a strawman to boot - she was advocating less corporate power in that video, not "larger" government.
Anyways, just kind of annoying to see a video like that masquerading as a "critique" that is "debunking" something when it is as full of bunk as anything else. :P I only watched the first half before I got sick of it though, so maybe it got better?
According to OPD, protesters were throwing bottles and being belligerent. According to protesters that is a fabricated story used to give the OPD's actions meaning and they were peaceful. Either way, the protesters don't seem very violent in the video. I'm curious to know what happened to lead up to these events.
He however, misses the point. Many non profits like the aclu realize they couldnt lobby either. They are ok with it as long as the people can.
He also points out that if people don't agree with what the 1% are saying and doing, they can band together pool their money and do the same.
Fair How?
That's assuming they can scrape together that same kind of cash to buy themselves enough politicians who will be willing to listen. That's assuming that the current system hasn't been altered in a way that only allows for corporate candidates in both parties. Whoever you vote for, whichever party, they're backed by the 1% and will continue to do what is in their best interests, which is make sure they get a good return on their investment, they don't buy politicians because its the in thing to spend your money on, they do it because it brings them more money.
Power Distribution
He assumes that once a group is in power they aren't going to try and stack the deck in their favor so they keep the cash and power flowing. They've been at it so long that there really isn't a way for the majority of people to pull together and get their voice heard... except through civil disobedience and even then as long as they are caged and controlled they aren't a threat to anything.
Redistricting is a hugely partisan issue now, where it should never be. Facts and figures along with a non-partisian outside group should decide the lines instead of politicians who will go out of their way to carve up the map in their favor.
Political parties try to load up non political positions such as the supreme court and federal courts so they can either keep their skewed laws in place or throw out the ones that work against them, like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the Federal Election Campaign Act, which they've now managed to gut.
The Citizens United ruling did change things, drastically.
It went out of its way to strike down parts of BCRA which also struck at FECA which limited campaign contributions.
Mitch McConnell finally got to stick his thumb in McCain's eye for trying to reform the system and buck the party. He tried once before with McConnell vs Federal Election Commission and lost. He can't win through logic, reason, good ideas and popular opinion so he works to stack the deck. He needed something much more specific and narrow that the court could agree with him on in that specific case but would be used to strike down the laws he didn't like. Enter Citizen United.
Thanks to the citizens united ruling BCRA was gutted and the FEC chained up in the yard, the people with power and money are free to write the narrative any way they see fit without much counter point or discussion. The idea that if the people don't like it they can just play the same game only without the luxury of money and a custom made rule book.
Democracy vs Republic
That's a lame duck brought up by politicians who don't like that democracy is too close to democrat and republic is closer to republican. Since its inception the united states has been considered a democratic form of government. Democracy is a loose term that covers the style of government we have. Trying to say we don't have a democracy because its a republic is like saying peanut butter doesn't come from peanuts, or I'm not a human because I'm Mark.
Now if you want to argue that our democracy has been taken over and turned into a plutocracy then you might have a point but then his beloved political party draws fire and he doesn't want that.
I think we've thoroughly established that power corrupts and money is power. What's more, money tends to eventually be concentrated into the hands of a few, which means that to remove corruption and power, we need to get rid of money.
Yeah, I know. The idea is completely reactionary, but it's true. We need to get rid of money altogether. When the incentive of money is removed and we utilize technology to eliminate poverty, hunger, illness, and want, we'll be free to form a whole new set of incentives that are aligned to improving ourselves through mutual collaboration.
"People working together cooperatively to achieve common beneficiary goals? Madness I tell you!" Progress is hindered today because people only will create something beneficial to us if they can make money from it. If it's not profitable, it doesn't come to fruition. Alternative energy, medical breakthroughs, technology, and agriculture are all hindered from prospering because the costs or lack of profit potential.
Battery technology languishes in unused patents because the oil companies make so much money from their petroleum products and solar/wind/etc. would provide free abundant energy that would make their products irrelevant, but would arguably make life here much more sustainable. It isn't because solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal are impractical. It's because they're unprofitable, but very beneficial to us nevertheless.
Pharma profits from people continually being in need of drugs to fight off and mitigate illnesses. If they found a way to cure disease and death, they'd have no one to sell their drugs to, but people would be healthier and live a lot longer (if not indefinitely).
We have the technology to provide food to everyone on this planet with the resources we already have and no one has to go hungry, but Monsanto wants to be the only source of food in the world so they can rake it all the money and thus, power over all other people.
It's money that is the source of all of our problems and it is money that we need to be rid of to take the power away from the 1% that rule us and treat us like resources to be exploited so they can have their comfortable seat at the top.
In response to MM's video post on the use of flashbangs on unarmed peacful protestors, they are asking for the people to go to war with the police. If this keeps up, there's going to be an explosion of violence in direct proportion to the pressure the authorities are putting on them. They're asking for a fight and they'll get it if they don't back down. What they're doing is wrong and illegal. Yeah, the 1st amendment applies until you try to exercise that right. Then you're forming an "illegal assembly".
Without a doubt! They tossed a flashbang into a crowd of people trying to assist an injured person! This government is showing its fascist colors more and more every day.
The more they push the more the fake facade crumbles and reveals the real system. If the protesters remain peaceful this can set something big off. this is beyond politics, this is human rights.
this guy is openly bigoted and is leading GOP race
Not for long, I don't think. More and more people are starting to see his 9-9-9 plan for what it is: a tax hike on the middle class and the poor, and a massive tax break on the wealthy. Also, he's been exposed on flip-flopping a number of issues.
Meanwhile, Romney continues to be the media's choice for the next president, Perry is done for after the last debate, Bachmann and Santorum never had a chance, Gingrich is gaining some followers, but not much, and Paul is continuing to gain ground.
I think this is going to be between Romney, Paul, and Cain, but I think Cain's run will fall apart once people figure out what the 9-9-9 plan actually does:
What I don't get is why anyone in the Taxed Enough Already party would support a national sales tax, that's some crazy stuff and a complete selling out of their supposed core principles.
What I don't get is why anyone in the Taxed Enough Already party would support a national sales tax, that's some crazy stuff and a complete selling out of their supposed core principles.
A national sales tax would be a possibility if it was progressive sales tax that increases as the price goes up.
No way, especially a national sales tax on top of a state sales tax. I would be paying almost 20% tax on everything I buy.
It would go from 8.6% 2 years ago to 19.4% in 3 years.
On top of sky rocketing health care premiums (we have a private plan for my wife and daughter).
On top of the raising cost of food, fuel and utilities.
I whole heartily say, take your tax and cram it up your ass. Rage doesn't begin to express what I would feel if some of these pizza box economist get into power again. I've had enough of the Yosemite Sam politics. It's time to stop playing war and stop playing monopoly. Its time for the reasonable people to start making rational decisions.
No way, especially a national sales tax on top of a state sales tax. I would be paying almost 20% tax on everything I buy.
It would go from 8.6% 2 years ago to 19.4% in 3 years.
On top of sky rocketing health care premiums (we have a private plan for my wife and daughter).
On top of the raising cost of food, fuel and utilities.
I whole heartily say, take your tax and cram it up your ass. Rage doesn't begin to express what I would feel if some of these pizza box economist get into power again. I've had enough of the Yosemite Sam politics. It's time to stop playing war and stop playing monopoly. Its time for the reasonable people to start making rational decisions.
Yeah, fuck taxes. It's not like the public services they pay for did anything for you.
Yeah, fuck taxes. It's not like the public services they pay for did anything for you.
We could bring down taxes and still pay for the essential public services just fine. Instead, we are squeezing the middle class with taxes to pay for foreign wars, keeping troops in over a hundred countries around the world including Japan, Korea, and Germany, the continuous waste of giving away billions of dollars of money to countries (which is basically taking money from the working-class American people in this country and giving it to the rich people in those countries), departments that are unproductive, etc. I don't understand why some people think that if we cut just a little bit of spending and lower taxes, half of the country is suddenly going to shut down.
And besides, none of those services are going to be around for much longer if we don't do something to solve our debt crisis. We can't keep doing this forever.
We could bring down taxes and still pay for the essential public services just fine. Instead, we are squeezing the middle class with taxes to pay for foreign wars, keeping troops in over a hundred countries around the world including Japan, Korea, and Germany, the continuous waste of giving away billions of dollars of money to countries (which is basically taking money from the working-class American people in this country and giving it to the rich people in those countries), departments that are unproductive, etc. I don't understand why some people think that if we cut just a little bit of spending and lower taxes, half of the country is suddenly going to shut down.
And besides, none of those services are going to be around for much longer if we don't do something to solve our debt crisis. We can't keep doing this forever.
When they cut taxes, much needed public services suffer and people get the shaft.
Yeah, fuck taxes. It's not like the public services they pay for did anything for you.
I'm all for paying a bit more in taxes to put my country back in the black I've said many times that the tax holiday should end for everyone. But I can't afford the kinds of a hikes that the GOP is floating around. I'm not willing to screw over millions of elderly, disabled and impovershed people just so those who have grown their over abundance of weath to unprecidented levels can go enen higher. Im not willing to shut down the social safety net just so a handful of rich fuckers can have their taxes slashed more than they've been over the last 30 years.
Those that have the means to maintain their lifestyle while helping their country, should. That includes me. I can tighten my belt and pay more, why do the rich think they are above their social responsibility?
I'm all for paying a bit more in taxes to put my country back in the black I've said many times that the tax holiday should end for everyone. But I can't afford the kinds of a hikes that the GOP is floating around. I'm not willing to screw over millions of elderly, disabled and impovershed people just so those who have grown their over abundance of weath to unprecidented levels can go enen higher. Im not willing to shut down the social safety net just so a handful of rich fuckers can have their taxes slashed more than they've been over the last 30 years.
Those that have the means to maintain their lifestyle while helping their country, should. That includes me. I can tighten my belt and pay more, why do the rich think they are above their social responsibility?
Which GOP candidate is proposing this? As far as I know the only one willing to cut anything is Ron Paul, and he's stated numerous times that he's not cutting off anybody.
Which GOP candidate is proposing this? As far as I know the only one willing to cut anything is Ron Paul, and he's stated numerous times that he's not cutting off anybody.
Cains plan eliminates the social security tax which would bleed it dry faster than their current efforts to under fund it.
Perry has called social security a ponzi scheme and said its unconstitutional.
So far the GOP since SS was first put forward has been trying to kill it. The GOP is against any kind of social programs. The government should do one thing, facilitate the generation of wealth. Their latest effort "Ryan's plan" was to end it for anyone under 50. That sounds like a party that values the program...
All of their plans lower the tax rates on the rich lower than what they are now and right now a huge part of why we are in the mess we are in is because of the tax holiday. Now they want to go way under that.
To top it off even the GOP establishment has bashed cains plan and said it would raise taxes on the middle class.
Oh Oakland, showing once again how awesome you are at crowd control./s
Have they EVER controlled a crowd? Or just always raise the intensity of the event, until people start rioting?
I'm all for paying a bit more in taxes to put my country back in the black I've said many times that the tax holiday should end for everyone. But I can't afford the kinds of a hikes that the GOP is floating around. I'm not willing to screw over millions of elderly, disabled and impovershed people just so those who have grown their over abundance of weath to unprecidented levels can go enen higher. Im not willing to shut down the social safety net just so a handful of rich fuckers can have their taxes slashed more than they've been over the last 30 years.
Those that have the means to maintain their lifestyle while helping their country, should. That includes me. I can tighten my belt and pay more, why do the rich think they are above their social responsibility?
All I'm proposing is a progressive sales tax that would be so low at the bottom (like 1% max) it wouldn't have any affect on lower and middle classes, but huge (upwards of 80-90%) as you approach the most expensive items (Mansions, Bentley's, Yachts). They will have a considerably harder time dodging taxes if it's attached to all those expensive things that the rich love so much.
Its not that simple, lower and middle class families have expensive purchases too, new cars, homes. A home may cost the same as a Yacht, how do you differentiate between a rich person buying a Yacht, and a family who makes just enough to afford to buy property in an area with high real estate prices? All of a sudden, you can't afford to get a mortgage because you're getting taxed an additional 20%.
That's just poorly thought out. It would hurt everyone, not just the rich. A Bentley costs less than a house in most major metropolitan areas, all you're doing is making it even more difficult to afford the already inflated housing costs in these areas for your average person.
Its not that simple, lower and middle class families have expensive purchases too, new cars, homes. A home may cost the same as a Yacht, how do you differentiate between a rich person buying a Yacht, and a family who makes just enough to afford to buy property in an area with high real estate prices? All of a sudden, you can't afford to get a mortgage because you're getting taxed an additional 20%.
That's just poorly thought out. It would hurt everyone, not just the rich. A Bentley costs less than a house in most major metropolitan areas, all you're doing is making it even more difficult to afford the already inflated housing costs in these areas for your average person.
I don't deny that it would be difficult to achieve, I have thought about those issues, and you're right. But what if people of lower incomes were to receive a "refund" on their taxes to offset this issue? Surely middle and lower class people don't purchase as many high priced items as the rich do? Or perhaps make certain items exempt from tax? Like primary residence. So long as you don't already own a home or comparable property, you don't have to pay the sales tax? It's all for naught to argue about it anyway, nobody with any impetus to change the system is going to inquire my advice on how to redesign the system. And I'm only talking about how to deal with the system under the current economic system. I'd much rather see humanity take on a resource based economy, but we don't currently have the technology in place nor the sensibilities to accomplish that yet.
Also, it's not simply that rich people buy more expensive single items, but that they are capable of spending more money on small to middle range purchases: tickets to events, airfare and lodging, expensive dining, etc. Think Brewster's Millions - money spent on entertainment or non-physical/non-permanent goods.
I love how the police just straight up lied about using rubber bullets at Oakland, People found and photographed rubber bullets and flashbang grenades at the scene, as well as videotaping the whole thing. Fucking disgusting.
Sales taxes always hurt middle to lower income families much more than anyone else. That's why raising them, and lowering income tax is bs.
(arbitrary numbers to show what I mean)
family makes 2,000$ month and pays 200$/month in groceries. lets say Sales tax is 10% so they actually spent 200$ on groceries and 20.00$ on sales taxes for those.
So every month they spend 1% of their monthly income on taxes for groceries.
Someone else makes 10,000$/month they spend 400$ on groceries and 40$ on sale taxes. for this higher income family they're spending 0.4% of they're monthly income on groceries.
(Edit: my bad - got my decimals in the wrong spots)
Cain's 9-9-9 plan lowers income tax (a tax based on percentage earnings) and raises sales tax (a flat tax that doesn't take into account income). That's why middle income earners will pay more. they shop just as much, but don't make as much.
I whole heartily say, take your tax and cram it up your ass. Rage doesn't begin to express what I would feel if some of these pizza box economist get into power again. I've had enough of the Yosemite Sam politics. It's time to stop playing war and stop playing monopoly. Its time for the reasonable people to start making rational decisions.
Yeah, fuck taxes. It's not like the public services they pay for did anything for you.
I imagine mark was talking about Cain's 9-9-9 hence the 'pizza' comment.
I don't understand why some people think that if we cut just a little bit of spending and lower taxes, half of the country is suddenly going to shut down.
it has been shown that it doesn't help the economy as much as you might think (relative to raising taxes and investing in infrastructure)
According to the study, by economist Jim Stanford, the Conservatives’ proposed 3-point reduction in corporate tax rates would cost the public purse $6 billion per year, yet only stimulate about $600 million of new business investment annually.
If the federal government spent $6 billion on public infrastructure instead of corporate tax cuts, the total increase in investment would be more than ten times as great as the increase in private investment from tax cuts alone. This includes the new public investment itself ($6 billion), as well as an additional $520 million in private business investment that would be stimulated through the positive spin-off effects of the resulting economic growth.
Take into consideration that when government spends money to create jobs (gov jobs, at least in canada reasonable/high paying jobs)
1. that lowers the unemployment rate,
2. puts those people into a position where they are eligible to be paying income taxes (gov gets back money)
3. Because they make a reasonable amount of money they can afford the products of the businesses around them (paying sales tax for what they buy). That creates more money for those businesses
4. so they hire new people to keep up with business
Back to #1 rinse and repeat.
Lowering taxes in a time where the unemployment rate is high, and average income for the vast majority of people has been stagnating and declining (for at least 10 years and longer) won't make that much of a dent. Money is suppose to start at the top and trickle it's way down - currently that trickle is only a drip.
When so much money is concentrated in such a small amount of people businesses will gradually lose their consumers because the target consumer's income bracket is getting smaller and smaller, so they can no longer afford the product.
Replies
Man tries to stab protestors:
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2339751.shtml?cat=504
Chemical Bomb is thrown into the center of Occupy Maine Camp:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Chemical-bomb-tossed-into-Occupy-Maine-encampment.html
I don't think it will
apart from that the movement is still very much alive.
Occupywallst.org
This is from Foxnews.com if you can believe it:
'Occupy Wall Street' -- It's Not What They're for, But What They're Against
I had a heart attack when I read that and on Fox news of all places.
That was one day before (Oct 14th) the "global occupation date" of Oct 15th. It IS a positive article, and it has a purpose but the narrative has changed repeatedly since...
case in point, 4 days later:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/10/18/protesters-real-motivation-envy/
"You're pouting cause you don't have a job? Can't eat? Can't support your family? Can't pay your debt? Spiraling down into depression and bankruptcy? Cry moar, wa wa wa wa wa. I have a job and my fist is jammed so far up my own ass I don't give a fuck."
I have family still struggling with these issues and to read something like this is infuriating.
Fuck Fox.
1) News Corp investors are severely pissed off at Murdoch, if it wasn't for his controlling stake he would have been ousted. Occupy looks to have a wide swath of support with the tea party starting to tune in they might see their base shift away. They could only play the "yea but what do they want" card so long before the actual message got around them.
When your investors, a huge chunk of the public and some key figures in governments around the world are against you, its not a wise time to be poking people in the eyes with sticks. If they do it right they can get everyone under the foxtard umbrella...
2) It's an opinion piece that was quickly buried. They'll drag it up as an example of their fair and balanced reporting. "See we did a pro occupy piece..." (along with 800 trash pieces).
In Tokyo......
In Hong Kong.......
http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/
[ame="
He however, misses the point. Many non profits like the aclu realize they couldnt lobby either. They are ok with it as long as the people can.
The only thing I disagree with was their banner saying "capitalism isn't working"
It works for anyone with enough moolah for a Cayman/Swiss/Luxemburg bank account.
Hrm... Not that I particularly like the animated video, but that guy's worse. He basically oversimplifies, strawmans, or deliberately misinterprets her points to make his own. For instance he said she implied that everything corporations want goes against what is best for the people. She never implied that. She said that what people want will take a backseat as long as corporation can spend millions to influence politicians. Quite a different concept.
He also does exactly what she says and cites crap without any evidence. "The larger the government, the more incentive to spend lots to lobby it". No backing statistics or info that that's the case, just some quote he picked up. And a strawman to boot - she was advocating less corporate power in that video, not "larger" government.
Anyways, just kind of annoying to see a video like that masquerading as a "critique" that is "debunking" something when it is as full of bunk as anything else. :P I only watched the first half before I got sick of it though, so maybe it got better?
police "evict" occupy Oakland
Over 1000 march to re-occupy the City Hall in Oakland right now (less than 24 hrs of being "evicted")
livestream:
http://www.livestream.com/occupyoakland
According to OPD, protesters were throwing bottles and being belligerent. According to protesters that is a fabricated story used to give the OPD's actions meaning and they were peaceful. Either way, the protesters don't seem very violent in the video. I'm curious to know what happened to lead up to these events.
Fair How?
That's assuming they can scrape together that same kind of cash to buy themselves enough politicians who will be willing to listen. That's assuming that the current system hasn't been altered in a way that only allows for corporate candidates in both parties. Whoever you vote for, whichever party, they're backed by the 1% and will continue to do what is in their best interests, which is make sure they get a good return on their investment, they don't buy politicians because its the in thing to spend your money on, they do it because it brings them more money.
Power Distribution
He assumes that once a group is in power they aren't going to try and stack the deck in their favor so they keep the cash and power flowing. They've been at it so long that there really isn't a way for the majority of people to pull together and get their voice heard... except through civil disobedience and even then as long as they are caged and controlled they aren't a threat to anything.
The Citizens United ruling did change things, drastically.
It went out of its way to strike down parts of BCRA which also struck at FECA which limited campaign contributions.
Mitch McConnell finally got to stick his thumb in McCain's eye for trying to reform the system and buck the party. He tried once before with McConnell vs Federal Election Commission and lost. He can't win through logic, reason, good ideas and popular opinion so he works to stack the deck. He needed something much more specific and narrow that the court could agree with him on in that specific case but would be used to strike down the laws he didn't like. Enter Citizen United.
Thanks to the citizens united ruling BCRA was gutted and the FEC chained up in the yard, the people with power and money are free to write the narrative any way they see fit without much counter point or discussion. The idea that if the people don't like it they can just play the same game only without the luxury of money and a custom made rule book.
Democracy vs Republic
That's a lame duck brought up by politicians who don't like that democracy is too close to democrat and republic is closer to republican. Since its inception the united states has been considered a democratic form of government. Democracy is a loose term that covers the style of government we have. Trying to say we don't have a democracy because its a republic is like saying peanut butter doesn't come from peanuts, or I'm not a human because I'm Mark.
Now if you want to argue that our democracy has been taken over and turned into a plutocracy then you might have a point but then his beloved political party draws fire and he doesn't want that.
[ame="
this guy is openly bigoted and is leading GOP race
anyways, back to OWS! more images from Oakland:
Six-year Navy veteran Joshua Sheperd holds a veterans for peace flag during a demonstration by Occupy Oakland at the intersection of 14th and Broadway Streets in Oakland, Calif. Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011. Photo by Erik Verduzco. by goldengatexpress
[ame="
Yeah, I know. The idea is completely reactionary, but it's true. We need to get rid of money altogether. When the incentive of money is removed and we utilize technology to eliminate poverty, hunger, illness, and want, we'll be free to form a whole new set of incentives that are aligned to improving ourselves through mutual collaboration.
"People working together cooperatively to achieve common beneficiary goals? Madness I tell you!" Progress is hindered today because people only will create something beneficial to us if they can make money from it. If it's not profitable, it doesn't come to fruition. Alternative energy, medical breakthroughs, technology, and agriculture are all hindered from prospering because the costs or lack of profit potential.
Battery technology languishes in unused patents because the oil companies make so much money from their petroleum products and solar/wind/etc. would provide free abundant energy that would make their products irrelevant, but would arguably make life here much more sustainable. It isn't because solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal are impractical. It's because they're unprofitable, but very beneficial to us nevertheless.
Pharma profits from people continually being in need of drugs to fight off and mitigate illnesses. If they found a way to cure disease and death, they'd have no one to sell their drugs to, but people would be healthier and live a lot longer (if not indefinitely).
We have the technology to provide food to everyone on this planet with the resources we already have and no one has to go hungry, but Monsanto wants to be the only source of food in the world so they can rake it all the money and thus, power over all other people.
It's money that is the source of all of our problems and it is money that we need to be rid of to take the power away from the 1% that rule us and treat us like resources to be exploited so they can have their comfortable seat at the top.
In response to MM's video post on the use of flashbangs on unarmed peacful protestors, they are asking for the people to go to war with the police. If this keeps up, there's going to be an explosion of violence in direct proportion to the pressure the authorities are putting on them. They're asking for a fight and they'll get it if they don't back down. What they're doing is wrong and illegal. Yeah, the 1st amendment applies until you try to exercise that right. Then you're forming an "illegal assembly".
Without a doubt! They tossed a flashbang into a crowd of people trying to assist an injured person! This government is showing its fascist colors more and more every day.
Not for long, I don't think. More and more people are starting to see his 9-9-9 plan for what it is: a tax hike on the middle class and the poor, and a massive tax break on the wealthy. Also, he's been exposed on flip-flopping a number of issues.
Meanwhile, Romney continues to be the media's choice for the next president, Perry is done for after the last debate, Bachmann and Santorum never had a chance, Gingrich is gaining some followers, but not much, and Paul is continuing to gain ground.
I think this is going to be between Romney, Paul, and Cain, but I think Cain's run will fall apart once people figure out what the 9-9-9 plan actually does:
http://deoccupy.com/
A national sales tax would be a possibility if it was progressive sales tax that increases as the price goes up.
It would go from 8.6% 2 years ago to 19.4% in 3 years.
On top of sky rocketing health care premiums (we have a private plan for my wife and daughter).
On top of the raising cost of food, fuel and utilities.
I whole heartily say, take your tax and cram it up your ass. Rage doesn't begin to express what I would feel if some of these pizza box economist get into power again. I've had enough of the Yosemite Sam politics. It's time to stop playing war and stop playing monopoly. Its time for the reasonable people to start making rational decisions.
Yeah, fuck taxes. It's not like the public services they pay for did anything for you.
TYT is live! http://www.theyoungturks.com/
Those are my hopes which will never come to fruition.
Occupy the media!!!!!
sigh!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/25/18695124.php
We could bring down taxes and still pay for the essential public services just fine. Instead, we are squeezing the middle class with taxes to pay for foreign wars, keeping troops in over a hundred countries around the world including Japan, Korea, and Germany, the continuous waste of giving away billions of dollars of money to countries (which is basically taking money from the working-class American people in this country and giving it to the rich people in those countries), departments that are unproductive, etc. I don't understand why some people think that if we cut just a little bit of spending and lower taxes, half of the country is suddenly going to shut down.
And besides, none of those services are going to be around for much longer if we don't do something to solve our debt crisis. We can't keep doing this forever.
When they cut taxes, much needed public services suffer and people get the shaft.
Those that have the means to maintain their lifestyle while helping their country, should. That includes me. I can tighten my belt and pay more, why do the rich think they are above their social responsibility?
Which GOP candidate is proposing this? As far as I know the only one willing to cut anything is Ron Paul, and he's stated numerous times that he's not cutting off anybody.
Cains plan eliminates the social security tax which would bleed it dry faster than their current efforts to under fund it.
Perry has called social security a ponzi scheme and said its unconstitutional.
So far the GOP since SS was first put forward has been trying to kill it. The GOP is against any kind of social programs. The government should do one thing, facilitate the generation of wealth. Their latest effort "Ryan's plan" was to end it for anyone under 50. That sounds like a party that values the program...
All of their plans lower the tax rates on the rich lower than what they are now and right now a huge part of why we are in the mess we are in is because of the tax holiday. Now they want to go way under that.
To top it off even the GOP establishment has bashed cains plan and said it would raise taxes on the middle class.
Have they EVER controlled a crowd? Or just always raise the intensity of the event, until people start rioting?
All I'm proposing is a progressive sales tax that would be so low at the bottom (like 1% max) it wouldn't have any affect on lower and middle classes, but huge (upwards of 80-90%) as you approach the most expensive items (Mansions, Bentley's, Yachts). They will have a considerably harder time dodging taxes if it's attached to all those expensive things that the rich love so much.
That's just poorly thought out. It would hurt everyone, not just the rich. A Bentley costs less than a house in most major metropolitan areas, all you're doing is making it even more difficult to afford the already inflated housing costs in these areas for your average person.
I don't deny that it would be difficult to achieve, I have thought about those issues, and you're right. But what if people of lower incomes were to receive a "refund" on their taxes to offset this issue? Surely middle and lower class people don't purchase as many high priced items as the rich do? Or perhaps make certain items exempt from tax? Like primary residence. So long as you don't already own a home or comparable property, you don't have to pay the sales tax? It's all for naught to argue about it anyway, nobody with any impetus to change the system is going to inquire my advice on how to redesign the system. And I'm only talking about how to deal with the system under the current economic system. I'd much rather see humanity take on a resource based economy, but we don't currently have the technology in place nor the sensibilities to accomplish that yet.
I love how the police just straight up lied about using rubber bullets at Oakland, People found and photographed rubber bullets and flashbang grenades at the scene, as well as videotaping the whole thing. Fucking disgusting.
(arbitrary numbers to show what I mean)
family makes 2,000$ month and pays 200$/month in groceries. lets say Sales tax is 10% so they actually spent 200$ on groceries and 20.00$ on sales taxes for those.
So every month they spend 1% of their monthly income on taxes for groceries.
Someone else makes 10,000$/month they spend 400$ on groceries and 40$ on sale taxes. for this higher income family they're spending 0.4% of they're monthly income on groceries.
(Edit: my bad - got my decimals in the wrong spots)
Cain's 9-9-9 plan lowers income tax (a tax based on percentage earnings) and raises sales tax (a flat tax that doesn't take into account income). That's why middle income earners will pay more. they shop just as much, but don't make as much.
I imagine mark was talking about Cain's 9-9-9 hence the 'pizza' comment.
it has been shown that it doesn't help the economy as much as you might think (relative to raising taxes and investing in infrastructure)
http://fulltextreports.com/2011/04/15/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-investment/
Take into consideration that when government spends money to create jobs (gov jobs, at least in canada reasonable/high paying jobs)
1. that lowers the unemployment rate,
2. puts those people into a position where they are eligible to be paying income taxes (gov gets back money)
3. Because they make a reasonable amount of money they can afford the products of the businesses around them (paying sales tax for what they buy). That creates more money for those businesses
4. so they hire new people to keep up with business
Back to #1 rinse and repeat.
Lowering taxes in a time where the unemployment rate is high, and average income for the vast majority of people has been stagnating and declining (for at least 10 years and longer) won't make that much of a dent. Money is suppose to start at the top and trickle it's way down - currently that trickle is only a drip.
When so much money is concentrated in such a small amount of people businesses will gradually lose their consumers because the target consumer's income bracket is getting smaller and smaller, so they can no longer afford the product.
[ame="