• 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

Occupy Wall street, hardly a revolution.

These days, you need corporate backers like the Koch Bros.

You mean like Soros? You know his backing is in there right?


j-mac
 
Glad that made you laugh, that is what I was going for....

j-mac

I thought that must have been the case. But you did not address what I challenged you on. Just making sure you knew that. :coffeepap
 
I thought that must have been the case. But you did not address what I challenged you on. Just making sure you knew that. :coffeepap


Ok, so you want me to pour through Stewart clips to show you what is evident, and plain for everyone to see?

ok here was an easy one...


BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight: another round with our pal Jon Stewart. Earlier this week, Stewart took on the Congressman Steve Cohen-Nazi controversy. You may remember this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STEVE COHEN, D-TENN.: They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie. Just like Goebbels, you say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually people believe it. The Germans said enough about the Jews, and people believed it, and you had the Holocaust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Well, Cohen was roundly criticized for that statement for two reasons. First, because he compared those who opposed Obamacare as spreading Nazi-like propaganda, a falsehood. And second, he did that just days after President Obama called for civility in the national debate in a speech in Arizona.

Congressman Cohen made a huge mistake, no question. But Jon Stewart sees it a bit differently. He did not defend Cohen. He didn't defend the man. But he believes there's hypocrisy in play and that I, your humble correspondent, am a part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: That clip was from February 28, 2008, and it was edited by the Stewart folks. They played it on the broadcast. Here's the whole thing:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Israel Gobstein, Silver Spring, Maryland: "Mr. O'Reilly, I'm surprised at your lapse of judgment, comparing the tactics of the Nazis to The Huffington Post. I lost many members of my family to the Holocaust, and the meaning of their deaths means more than a comparison to a meaningless blog."

Now, first of all, I appreciate your letter very much, sir, and I've thought about it. If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: And here is the context to that letter and that statement. On February 17, 2008, Nancy Reagan fell, fell down and had to be taken to the hospital. Shortly after that, this appeared on The Huffington Post: "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub."

I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that my comparison to the vile Nazi propaganda machine is dead-on. You can make the call on that.

Jon Stewart didn't mention Nancy Reagan or the context of my remarks. He just used a short clip of a much longer statement, no setup whatsoever.

If Stewart were a journalist, I would pound him into pudding. But he's not; he's a comedian, and as such, has license to take things out of context for entertainment purposes.

O

Carry on...


j-mac
 
You mean like Soros? You know his backing is in there right?


Did Soros foot the bill for the various Tea Bagger days around D.C.?

Does Soros buy candidates based on what positions benefit only him and his businesses?

Do the Koch brother encourage the raising of their taxes?


Comparing far-rightie billionaires to moderate and progressive billionaires FAILS right out of the gate.
 
While the movement is losing approval, the ideas it is pushing are gaining approval.
66% now believe that the US has a wealth distribution problem. This has not been above 50% since the Great Depression.
Approval for universal healthcare is rising.
Approval for cutting Medicare and Social Security is dropping.
Approval for more regulation of Wall Street and banking is rising.
Approval of public-sector unions is rising.
That means the end of the USA will just come sooner.
 
Ok, so you want me to pour through Stewart clips to show you what is evident, and plain for everyone to see?

ok here was an easy one...




Carry on...


j-mac

I hope you have something better than this. He really doesn't show anything that is really out of context to Stewart's comments. Did you notice that he didn't actually show Stewart's clip? Not just the entire clip, but any of it.

This is what it was about:

Although the majority of Fox News pundits spoke out against Nazi name-calling, it was Megyn Kelly who took it to a hypocritical level by saying that kind of rhetoric doesn't exist on Fox News.

Jon Stewart Calls Out Fox News' Nazi Hypocrisy (VIDEO)

Try this for some fun:

Fox News Uses "Nazi" The Way 16-year Olds Use "Like" - Business Insider
 
Did Soros foot the bill for the various Tea Bagger days around D.C.?

Nope, but he does fund OWS, and the groups trying to co opt it....

Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros​ is a major backer of a left-wing group that is funneling money to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The nonprofit organization at the receiving end of Soros’ largesse, Alliance for Global Justice, is managing donations benefiting the communists, socialists, anarchists and hippies now occupying Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. As of Oct. 19, OWS had taken in a grand total of $435,000 from all sources, including donations made by individuals online and in person, according to reports.

It should surprise no one that Soros (net worth: $22 billion), the ultimate Wall Street insider and preeminent funder of the activist Left today, embraces Occupy Wall Street.

George Soros Funds Occupy Wall Street - HUMAN EVENTS


Does Soros buy candidates based on what positions benefit only him and his businesses?


Absolutely, and further buys the people in charge of overseeing our election process thus corrupting it....Think Franken....

History's most notorious Georgian-turned-Russian, the politically astute Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

The lesson has not been lost on the increasingly notorious Hungarian-cum-American George Soros.

A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.

This is, of course, the same Soros, the same hyperpolitical left-wing philanthropist who makes no secret of his intention to destroy capitalism. In an interview with Der Spiegel last year, Soros said European-style socialism "is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful -- but also very harmful to our society."

The American Spectator : Soros Eyes Secretaries

Do the Koch brother encourage the raising of their taxes?

Well, that would be dumb. Should they or something?

Comparing far-rightie billionaires to moderate and progressive billionaires FAILS right out of the gate.

Soros? George Soros? Moderate? :ROFL:


j-mac
 
That means the end of the USA will just come sooner.

I'd say it means that Americans are waking up to the fact that, since they actually like a lot of what the government does, they may actually have to pony up for it.
 
Last edited:
By comparison, the Republican Congress has a favorability rating more than 3 times lower than the OWS protesters. Does this mean the election will be called off?


That is just a little misleading if you ask me. Everyone knows that overall people are upset with congress as a whole, but in general if you ask people if they are satisfied with their own congressperson, they will say yes, it is the other guys.

j-mac
 
I sincerely doubt it. there will be more riots, and the longer they destroy business in the cities they inhabit the more they wear out any tolerance or welcome. smashing storefronts, spraypainting everything, shutting down economic activity, destroying jobs; these are not the things likely to engender you to the American people. Nor are the OWSers likely to have the maturity to make a conscious decision to tone it down, scale it back, expel their troublemakers.

Yes. As soon as riots start, the incompetent government's first response is to rejoice as it gives them the perfect excuse now to smear those activists and give the institution full confidence to deal with protests using violent means.

Its just their way of saying... we admit that we havn't done a good job as a government... but you protesters are actually worse than us and therefore we still have the higher moral ground and be justified to violently stop you .
 
That is just a little misleading if you ask me. Everyone knows that overall people are upset with congress as a whole, but in general if you ask people if they are satisfied with their own congressperson, they will say yes, it is the other guys.

j-mac

Yep. This was true when you argued it meant doom for democrats and it is true now. Funny how we only realize that when it suits us to.

:coffeepap
 
It was one of those polls with "cheddar!" as an option; those people didn't need to be discussed in the article. :D

Wrong poll. You, of course, are referring to the Wisconsin recall race polls. :mrgreen:
 
WHY do the rich need to pay more in taxes? Because:

1. We need to raise more revenue, even if we cut spending dramatically;

Taxing one group of people more because we can and we want their money?

2. The rich, unlike the poor and middle class, can pay higher taxes without suffering;

Good 'ol penalize them for succeeding theory.

3. The rich benefitted more than the poor and middle class from previous tax cuts;

Irrelevant.
4. The rich are paying at very low rate relative to rates over the last 80 years;

I think most rich people have paid more in taxes than most.

5. The rich have prospered over the last 30 years while every other group has lost ground or marched in place.

The rich have prospered because people keep giving them money.


Bottom line is here is you think the rich should be forced to fund everything because they are successful. That doesn't make them responsible for you, or anyone else. Would you like it if the majority of your money was taken from you and you were forced to feed my kids just because you could afford to do so? Taxing any class or group of people differently than any other group is wrong. Would you feel better if the rich were taxed at 60% while the poor were taxed at 0%? How is that fair? Aside from cutting costs and things, this is the mentality that drives the rich out of our country. This is why more and more corporations are headquartered in Ireland and other places. If they want to be here in America they are forced to deal with ideals like this. What ever happened to equality? Or is it just equality unless your doing better than me?
 
Bottom line is here is you think the rich should be forced to fund everything because they are successful. That doesn't make them responsible for you, or anyone else. Would you like it if the majority of your money was taken from you and you were forced to feed my kids just because you could afford to do so? Taxing any class or group of people differently than any other group is wrong. Would you feel better if the rich were taxed at 60% while the poor were taxed at 0%? How is that fair? Aside from cutting costs and things, this is the mentality that drives the rich out of our country. This is why more and more corporations are headquartered in Ireland and other places. If they want to be here in America they are forced to deal with ideals like this. What ever happened to equality? Or is it just equality unless your doing better than me?

It's strictly a pragmatic view. We need more revenue. Where are you going to get it? The rich have most of the money.

Taxing someone who is struggling to put food on the table, versus someone who doesn't think twice about eating at a four star restaurant every night -- is wrong. Even the rich will tell you that.

I see no evidence that the rich are being driven out of this country. In fact, living in Miami, I see a lot of uber rich foreigners buying up real estate and moving here.

Corporations moving offshore is a separate question. btw, how did having those super low tax rates work out for Ireland?
 
We do need more revenue but taking it unjustly just because someone has it and we can is wrong. No more than if I take your extra food and give it to my kids. There are better ways to make money for our country. Ways that are much more fair. The majority of people in this country pay no taxes at all. That should change. Everyone, no matter how rich or poor, race, religion or anything else should be paying the exact same % in taxes. If our government needs money it needs to cut spending. I don't even mean social or welfare programs. Our government blows so much money its mind boggling. Not to mention the money it gets milked out of. As far as making money, create tax payers. And by that I mean jobs. Businesses. Get more people off of welfare. Increase tourism to the United States and let more of that money we are sending out come back in. There are alot of ways to help fix our problems, stealing from the rich is not a solution. You don't penalize someone for being successful. That is not going to work, it never will.
 
I through together a chart showing the increase or decrease of tax burden on different economic groups. The groups are broken into quintiles (20%). It shows that we are putting a increase on the top 20% for the last 20 years to pay more of our taxes, while the bottom 80%'s share is going down.

share of federal tax.JPG

Data is from the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf
 
We do need more revenue but taking it unjustly just because someone has it and we can is wrong. No more than if I take your extra food and give it to my kids. There are better ways to make money for our country. Ways that are much more fair. The majority of people in this country pay no taxes at all. That should change. Everyone, no matter how rich or poor, race, religion or anything else should be paying the exact same % in taxes. If our government needs money it needs to cut spending. I don't even mean social or welfare programs. Our government blows so much money its mind boggling. Not to mention the money it gets milked out of. As far as making money, create tax payers. And by that I mean jobs. Businesses. Get more people off of welfare. Increase tourism to the United States and let more of that money we are sending out come back in. There are alot of ways to help fix our problems, stealing from the rich is not a solution. You don't penalize someone for being successful. That is not going to work, it never will.

It's not a penalty, it's the cost of doing business and it worked rather sensationally from the end of WWII through the 1970s. In contrast, flattening out the tax brackets hasn't worked very well at all.

Now, if you want a flat rate I could go for that ... if it was a flat property tax rather than a flat income tax. See, what you miss in your "fairness" analysis is that a middle class person who pays at a 17% rate is actually being taxed at close to 100% of his DISPOSABLE income, whereas a rich person being taxed at a 22% rate is being taxed at 22% of HIS disposable income. Does that seem fair?
 
I through together a chart showing the increase or decrease of tax burden on different economic groups. The groups are broken into quintiles (20%). It shows that we are putting a increase on the top 20% for the last 20 years to pay more of our taxes, while the bottom 80%'s share is going down.

View attachment 67118632

Data is from the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

however, you have failed to note that the dollar amount of income has risen for the top %.
 
Now, if you want a flat rate I could go for that ... if it was a flat property tax rather than a flat income tax. See, what you miss in your "fairness" analysis is that a middle class person who pays at a 17% rate is actually being taxed at close to 100% of his DISPOSABLE income, whereas a rich person being taxed at a 22% rate is being taxed at 22% of HIS disposable income. Does that seem fair?

Disposable income leaves too much to the imagination. Income is the key. Income period. When you take more % wise from a person it does become unfair. That is a penalty for being successful. Its discrimination. Treating a person of a certain class differently. Every person should be responsible for themselves. If they want more money, they need to earn more money. Not continually try to take money from those that do. All things equal, that is fair. Divisions amongst different groups of people is not.
 
Even when you compare their increase in income, you will see that they are being burdened more now than before.

The graph below takes each groups tax liability vs. their share of income by year. It shows that everone but the top 20% are going down. Signalling a increased burden on the top 20%.

tax liability vs. share of income.JPG
 
Still higher favorability ratings than the Tea Party or Congress, though...
Which means what? OWS failed miserably. They didn't get their message out except to beat up police officers.
 
Back
Top Bottom