• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Voters Viewing Occupy Wall St. Unfavorably

The main difference is that OWS is a true grass roots PROTEST, whereas the Tea Party has organized political rallies.

here you are correct. the Tea Party was made up of the kind of people with goals, and the competency to form organizations and make plans on how to achieve them. the OWS group appears to be made up of people with complaints, and who seem distinctly lacking in the 'how do i take personal responsibility for achieving our desired endstate" abilities.
 
here you are correct. the Tea Party was made up of the kind of people with goals, and the competency to form organizations and make plans on how to achieve them. the OWS group appears to be made up of people with complaints, and who seem distinctly lacking in the 'how do i take personal responsibility for achieving our desired endstate" abilities.

I disagree with the characterization. The people at the protests had the personal responsibility to get off their a$$es and commit weeks of their time to this effort. But it was more of a spontaneous thing, so by definition not driven by predetermined goals. They do seem to be getting more organized and figuring out what the common denominators are in their various concerns.
 
I am part of the 53% who pay all of the taxes. Now I am not in the top 1%. But I am in the top 5% (maybe 6% as the numbers change from time to time). I pay about half of everything I earn when all taxes are considered. I pay about a third to the federal government. That turns out to be a large number. Some of you would probably be happy to have what I pay as your annual salary.



The Good Reverend would not be happy with a pay cut. :pimpdaddy:
 
here you are correct. the Tea Party was made up of the kind of people with goals, and the competency to form organizations and make plans on how to achieve them. the OWS group appears to be made up of people with complaints, and who seem distinctly lacking in the 'how do i take personal responsibility for achieving our desired endstate" abilities.

It seems to me that the Tea Party members were also putting their country first rather than themselves. There is a lot of Me, Me ,Me, in the OWS crowd.
 
I disagree with the characterization. The people at the protests had the personal responsibility to get off their a$$es and commit weeks of their time to this effort. But it was more of a spontaneous thing, so by definition not driven by predetermined goals. They do seem to be getting more organized and figuring out what the common denominators are in their various concerns.

So first they protest and later they decide what they are protesting about?
 
So first they protest and later they decide what they are protesting about?

They all have their own agendas. There are certain common themes that run through them. Eventually, if the movement takes off, the common themes will become its agenda. This isn't like the Tea Party. There's no Dick Armey and no Koch Bros. running the show.
 
They all have their own agendas. There are certain common themes that run through them. Eventually, if the movement takes off, the common themes will become its agenda. This isn't like the Tea Party. There's no Dick Armey and no Koch Bros. running the show.

The Tea party was quite clear in their protests while the OWSers still haven't decided on a clear message, or messages. They don't appear to be either articllate or rational.

Neither Dick Armey or the Koch Bros. ran the Tea Party. This personalization of a public protest and the unsubstantiated demonization of individuals should be stopped.
 
32%-35%? Not bad for rioters who don't even have a clear message.

So what does that tell us? That a third of the American public are more than a little goofy?

Honestly, it sounds a bit like you're getting your information about what OWS is about from Fox or similar. Their message is very clear. They're sick of getting screwed by the combined forces of government and the super rich/corporations. That's it. That's their message. I don't know why so many folks are having such a hard time grasping that... It's pretty clear cut, no?
 
Honestly, it sounds a bit like you're getting your information about what OWS is about from Fox or similar. Their message is very clear. They're sick of getting screwed by the combined forces of government and the super rich/corporations. That's it. That's their message. I don't know why so many folks are having such a hard time grasping that... It's pretty clear cut, no?

Actually I'm responding to posters on this thread and have offered no links whatsoever.

What is the OWS solution to this problem of government, the super rich and corporations? And how do they feel they are getting screwed over? What were their expectations?
 
What is the OWS solution to this problem of government, the super rich and corporations?

They don't have one. They aren't a policy making institute or a political party, they're a bunch of people expressing their dismay at the way they're being treated.

And how do they feel they are getting screwed over? What were their expectations?

They feel that they are being screwed over because all the economic growth in this country- which is created by all the hard working people- is ending up in the pockets of a very small number of people. GDP per capita in the US has increased by around 300% since the 1960s and productivity per year per worker has increased almost as much. But the median income has only increased 40% during that same period. In the 60s a family only needed to have one person working 40 hours a week to provide housing, health care, food, transportation, etc. Now it takes two or more people working and they're being expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week. Despite that, they're having a harder time covering those same basics.
 
They don't have one. They aren't a policy making institute or a political party, they're a bunch of people expressing their dismay at the way they're being treated.

Okay. And how are they being (mis) treated? What do they expect the government to do?

They feel that they are being screwed over because all the economic growth in this country- which is created by all the hard working people- is ending up in the pockets of a very small number of people. GDP per capita in the US has increased by around 300% since the 1960s and productivity per year per worker has increased almost as much. But the median income has only increased 40% during that same period. In the 60s a family only needed to have one person working 40 hours a week to provide housing, health care, food, transportation, etc. Now it takes two or more people working and they're being expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week. Despite that, they're having a harder time covering those same basics.

What you say is true. At one time one working man could afford to support a wife and children but since the "Great Society" and the taxes it takes to support these programs, one man can no longer support a family and the government as well. That has resulted in the break-up of the family, more abortions, more single parents, more drugs, more public debt, and so on.

If you want to get the government under control again you should consider the Tea Party. They are the only ones who have directed their attention to the specific problem of high taxes and out-of-control government spending. But because the last generation of Americans have become accustomed to government programs it will be a very difficult job to stop them. It will take a collapse as we see in Greece before people can get realistic.

Only fools rely on the government to look after them, and that includes their retirement and their health. The rich are only looking after themselves and their families, and so they should, though crony capitalism among the rich and the government has become a huge problem. We can see money disappearing down a hole but no one ever really knows who is responsible. That money should have been kept in the pockets of the American families and not been thrown away on corrupt pet projects.
 
Last edited:
What you say is true. At one time one working man could afford to support a wife and children but since the "Great Society" and the taxes it takes to support these programs, one man can no longer support a family and the government as well. That has resulted in the break-up of the family, more abortions, more single parents, more drugs, more public debt, and so on.

.

You date this to the Great Society?!?!?!?! I could have sworn it was the Reagan Years.
 
What you say is true. At one time one working man could afford to support a wife and children but since the "Great Society" and the taxes it takes to support these programs, one man can no longer support a family and the government as well.

Taxes are way lower today than they were before the great society.
 
In what way?

The Great Society legislation was passed between 1964 and 1966. In 1963 the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. Today it is 35%. Long term capital gains were taxed at 50% in 1963, where today they are taxed at 15%. The top estate tax bracket in 1963 was 70%. Today it is 35%. Etc.
 
The Great Society legislation was passed between 1964 and 1966. In 1963 the top income tax bracket was taxed at 91%. Today it is 35%. Long term capital gains were taxed at 50% in 1963, where today they are taxed at 15%. The top estate tax bracket in 1963 was 70%. Today it is 35%. Etc.

So do you feel that by raising taxes on income and and capital gains it would pay for the cost of the growth of the federal government and the accompanying entitlement programs?

Britain actually tried taxing 95% of the high income earners at which time the rock stars moved elsewhere, notably the States. Because there is a theoretical 91% on the books does not mean anyone pays it. The rich will either find their way around high taxes or, as in the case of Britain, leave. The Middle Class will always pay for big government and that should be obvious enough now to be generally accepted as fact. If the rich are smart enough to make the money they'll be smart enough to keep it. Best look for another option, like cutting government spending.
 
So do you feel that by raising taxes on income and and capital gains it would pay for the cost of the growth of the federal government and the accompanying entitlement programs?

Federal government hasn't actually grown much as a portion of GDP since the great society. It goes up and down as we get in and out of wars and the GDP booms and busts, but it's almost always been between 30% and 35% since the great society. The only exception is the Bush calamity of launching two simultaneous wars and crashing the economy at the same time. That knocked it up to 42% briefly. It's going back down again now as the economy picks up and we pull out of the wars somewhat.

Raising taxes certainly needs to be part of any deficit reduction program, yes. IMO we need to do three things- raise taxes on the rich, cut entitlement spending and cut military spending. With the deficit the size it is today, there really isn't any way we can close it if we leave any of those three off the table.
 
So do you feel that by raising taxes on income and and capital gains it would pay for the cost of the growth of the federal government and the accompanying entitlement programs?

Britain actually tried taxing 95% of the high income earners at which time the rock stars moved elsewhere, notably the States. Because there is a theoretical 91% on the books does not mean anyone pays it. The rich will either find their way around high taxes or, as in the case of Britain, leave. The Middle Class will always pay for big government and that should be obvious enough now to be generally accepted as fact. If the rich are smart enough to make the money they'll be smart enough to keep it. Best look for another option, like cutting government spending.

You don't have to travel across the pond for this. You can actually look closer to home. From 1932 until 1980 the top marginal rate ranged from 63% to 94%. Of course, like today, people didn't pay the full rate, but the wealthy did pay a much higher effective rate than they do now. And the country has never been stronger than it was during that period.
 
The sweet spot on the Laffer curve moves. Decreasing taxes only increases revenue when the sweet spot is lower than the current rates.
Decreasing taxes isn't always the answer.
 
what you are discussing is only a matter of instant revenue. over longer periods of time, the "sweet range" is actually quite broad. and the growth effects are generally immediate as well.

which is why you shouldn't only cut taxes, but also cut government.
 
Back
Top Bottom