ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [185] -- I Am A 99 Percenter

[ Posted Friday, October 14th, 2011 – 16:30 PDT ]

The Occupy Wall Street protest continues. So far, its staying power has surprised and enthused a large swath of America, and surprised and bemused much of the media. Solidarity "Occupy" protests have sprung up all across the land, for those without the means to travel to the main one in New York. This is all very encouraging, to say the least.

Lest I be misinterpreted, allow me to state up front that I have not participated in Occupy Wall Street, and therefore have no real right to make any sort of suggestion to the protesters. They have already been inundated with suggestions about what they should focus their protest on, by people who (like me) haven't been to Zuccotti Park. And I can certainly understand why the people camping out would get a little resentful at such outside interference in their protest aims. Also, allow me to state that I am not trying to co-opt their energy in any way at all (there have been plenty of others trying to do so, I realize).

But, having said all of that, I'm going to make a suggestion anyway, on one particular facet of the movement: its name. Because I truly think that if the protest wants to grow and expand into a forceful movement for change, it should consider a bit of rebranding.

My suggestion is actually a mild and unoriginal one: start calling yourselves "99 Percenters." Use this term constantly when addressing the media, and they will soon catch on and start using it as well. This will help facilitate exponential growth of the movement, and the continuation of the cause beyond one demonstration in lower Manhattan.

Allow me to explain my reasoning. In the first place, it is currently hard to easily personify the protesters themselves. Are they "Occupy Wall Streeters"? Or the more generic "Occupiers"? The most technically-correct would be "the Occupy Wall Street protesters," but that is quite a mouthful for the media to use in every sentence. The only real alternative is to use the acronym, but "OWS-ers" doesn't exactly have any kind of ring to it, either.

From a sheer branding perspective alone, "Occupy Wall Street" has two problems. The first is geographic in nature. For the sister protests springing up organically in other cities, they have a choice of something like: "Occupy Wall Street Albuquerque," or perhaps the more concise: "Occupy Topeka" (both of these were mere random geographic examples, I should mention, as I have no idea if such groups exist in these towns, and don't wish to cause any offense one way or the other). Either way, the brand gets diluted. You are left with one thread tying them together -- the word "Occupy" -- which is the second problem. Occupy is a pretty negative word, when you get right down to it. It is vaguely threatening, and might explain why the media has bought into the "hostage" scenario, by asking for "your list of demands" from the protesters. Remember the Bush administration vehemently denying America was "occupying" Iraq? There's a reason they fought back against this term -- because of its negative connotations.

"But Chris," you say, "the protesters want to have this negative connotation -- that's why they chose the term in the first place!" Which is a good and valid point, I have to admit. But that's when you have to examine closely what the overall goal of the protest is. If it is merely an attempt at street theater, to get America to think hard about the role of Wall Street in all of our lives, then this works just fine. But where does it end? What is such a protest's ultimate goal? This is where the lack of focus comes into play. Think about it -- the protesters are saying, in essence, "We are going to stay here until you change the way things are," but they are also saying at the same time, "We are not going to tell you exactly what has to change in order to convince us to stop protesting." But this seems to cross the border into protesting-for-protesting's-sake. If the goal remains completely undefined, then you can never claim any sort of victory whatsoever, in other words -- because there will always be something about Wall Street which will continue to annoy. No matter how successful the protests ultimately are in getting anything tangible changed, there will always be a further reason to continue the protest. Call it a "perpetual motion" protest, if you will -- because it will always regenerate the energy to continue, even if large changes are actually made as a result of the protest.

Which is why I'm suggesting slightly altering the brand itself. Feel free to call it crass capitalistic media manipulation if you will -- but that's kind of what we do here at this column, so you'll just have to excuse the overtones of terms like "branding."

I've said before (and I will continue to say) that the slogan "We are the 99 percent" is one of the most brilliant political slogans I have ever heard. It truly is a masterpiece. Who, after all, is going to self-identify with the other side in that debate? Politicians -- even Republican ones -- have already realized that "Well, I'm going to stand with the one percent" is not exactly a winning position to take. As a standalone bit of sloganeering, it is both brilliant and beautiful at the same time.

This is where the protest-versus-movement question can be solved, at least in my humble opinion. Because by self-identifying as a "99 Percenter" it widens the perspective to the point where anyone can join in support, whether they've been to an "Occupy" protest or not. It allows for instant expansion to every American who agrees with the purpose of the demonstrations. And it allows for a movement that can have larger goals than just occupying one piece of ground for as long as humanly possible.

The two terms are not at all incompatible, it bears pointing out. One can be a "99 Percenter" and an "Occupier" at the same time, because on the level of the people at the protests, they can truly be interchangeable. But for all the people who can't "Occupy Wall Street" with you, it shows inclusiveness to a much wider audience -- a base of support that can run into the millions. By giving the long-distance supporters a proud title as well, you open up the movement to massive growth from everyone. Well, at least 99 percent of everyone, I should say. "I am a 99 Percenter" can be proudly said by anyone, anywhere. To a pollster on the telephone, for instance. It resonates because the "I am" part of that statement isn't open to question (in the way that "I am an Occupy Wall Street protester" would come down to whether you actually were in Zuccotti Park or not). Whether you've been to a rally or not, to put it another way, you can still honestly proclaim: "I am a 99 Percenter!" It also makes for a much easier logo. Wearing a button with a simple "99%" on it can easily become shorthand for "I am a 99 Percenter." The collective term can even be later shortened to the much-snappier "99-er" -- which dovetails nicely with another group, the folks who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Being a 99 Percenter means the movement can have just as long a future as it needs. There is no closure on the situation of being a 99 Percenter, because no matter what the politicians do in support or against the movement's goals, there will still remain a 99 Percent at the end of the day. It is just as self-perpetuating -- but it is not dependent upon that one piece of ground at the same time.

Since the movement itself is as decentralized as possible, what this means is that it is free to interpretation by anyone. The protesters have so far been all-inclusive and open to ideas from all and sundry. So, all by myself, I am going to start calling the protesters the "99 Percenters" in the hopes that it catches on. I would love to see the spokespersons for the demonstrators start using this term themselves, as I truly think the media would latch onto it in a big way, given half a chance. They're already having problems with the correctness of "Occupy Wall Streeters" versus "Occupiers" so with a small nudge from the protesters themselves, they will quickly adopt the "99 Percenter" label. Doing so would do a number of things at the same time: it would give the media a snappier term to use, it would differentiate between one protest in New York and the movement at large, it would allow for inclusiveness on the millions who sympathize with the movement but can't make it to a protest, and it would allow the movement to continue in a much wider fashion if-and-when the very rich folks who own the park decide they've had enough, and that it's time to kick the protesters out. It would make the movement more mobile, and give it room to grow in the future and expand on the central theme of the Occupy Wall Street protest, without being tied to one spot of land.

I am not currently occupying Wall Street. But I am a 99 Percenter. See how easy this works?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Every so often here, we are impressed by an entity which is not exactly a person. Sometimes, they're not exactly Democrats, either. Since we arbitrarily make these rules, however, we always reserve the right to ignore them at will, and just hand an award out to whomever we feel like. This is one of those times.

For the first time ever, we are have created a Most Impressive Progressive Corporation Of The Week award, for a corporate entity (we refuse to say "corporate person," for what should be obvious reasons). While we have handed out a disappointing MDPCOTW award previously, in [FTP 119], this is the first time we've had to create one on the "impressive" side.

Our very first MIPCOTW award goes to none other than the Ben & Jerry's ice cream company. This week, Ben & Jerry's released a statement of support for Occupy Wall Street, and today they reportedly handed out some free ice cream to the 99 Percenters in New York. The Ben & Jerry's board of directors posted a message of support on their company website which clearly shows that they "get it" about the protests:

We know the media will either ignore you or frame the issue as to who may be getting pepper sprayed rather than addressing the despair and hardships borne by so many, or accurately conveying what this movement is about. All this goes on while corporate profits continue to soar and millionaires whine about paying a bit more in taxes. And we have not even mentioned the environment.

We know that words are relatively easy but we wanted to act quickly to demonstrate our support. As a board and as a company we have actively been involved with these issues for years but your efforts have put them out front in a way we have not been able to do. We have provided support to citizens' efforts to rein in corporate money in politics, we pay a livable wage to our employees, we directly support family farms and we are working to source fairly traded ingredients for all our products. But we realize that Occupy Wall Street is calling for systemic change. We support this call to action and are honored to join you in this call to take back our nation and democracy.

They even include a list of the protesters' goals which is as succinct and far-reaching as any I've seen yet. The whole statement is worth reading, for an example of how a corporate entity should act in this day and age.

Stepping up to the plate in such an admirable fashion (not to mention the free ice cream), we salute Ben & Jerry's this week, with our first-ever Most Impressive Progressive Corporation Of The Week award. Keep up the good work, guys!

[Congratulate the Ben & Jerry's corporation on their official company contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We have two Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week. Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana both voted with every single Republican in the Senate this week not to proceed on debate on President Obama's American Jobs Act.

This was not a final vote on the bill itself, it was merely a show of strength against Republicans. It was destined to fail anyway, because no Republican was going to vote for it. Even if it had been a final vote, and even if it was going to somehow succeed, the bill would never have even gotten a vote in the Republican House at all. Meaning the entire issue was one of politics.

And, even on a party-line political vote, two Democrats broke ranks. That, in a 53-47 Senate, is highly disappointing.

The final vote was actually only 50-49, because Harry Reid had to switch his vote to "Nay" to keep the bill alive for future tinkering. If Reid hadn't extended the floor voting and held it open longer than usual, one errant Democratic senator wouldn't have gotten the chance to vote (as she was busy accepting an award, instead of doing her job). In other words, it was always going to be close. But two Democrats voted to continue debate even though they didn't fully support the bill -- to show party unity.

Unfortunately, two didn't. Which means we'll be sending out two MDDOTW awards this week, to Senators Nelson and Tester. Thanks for nothing, guys.

[Contact Senator Ben Nelson on his Senate contact page, and Senator Jon Tester on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 185 (10/14/11)

This week, we're going to turn our talking points over to Bob Cesca, because the column he wrote yesterday had seven beautiful points to make on the failure of the American Jobs Act. But we'll get to that in a moment.

Before we get there, I'd just like to take this time to point out to the 99 Percenters that there are no shortage of current and specific political issues which could use some active support. Democratic politicians are notoriously bad at pushing this sort of thing, which is why they could use your help. If Democratic politicians were better at this stuff, we wouldn't have to write one of these columns every week, after all.

The issue that dovetails perfectly with the 99 Percent movement at the current moment would have to be breaking the logjam over getting President Obama's choice to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau confirmed by the Senate. The Republicans are on record stating that they won't vote for anyone for this job, because they hate the fact that the job -- and the bureau -- even exist. This is tailor-made for the theme of Occupy Wall Street. It is crystal-clear: how can anyone be against protecting consumers from Wall Street? Pick up the ball and run with it! Demand an up-or-down vote!

Or perhaps the news that the Republicans in the House just passed a bill which the Environmental Protection Agency estimates will cause 20,000 deaths -- all so corporations can pollute the air without the "onerous government regulations on their backs." This is a 99 Percenter issue if ever there was one -- either you're on the side of the corporations, or you're for saving 20,000 lives. That's a pretty stark difference, and one that's easy for everyone to understand. So where is the specific outrage over H.R. 2550?

And, finally, the American Jobs Act. While not perfect (no bill is), as you can see from Bob Cesca's points below, you are either on the side of the 99 Percent, or you are for filibustering the idea of trying to make things better. Which side are you on?

I'm not trying to limit the scope of the 99 Percent movement, mind you. I'm trying to expand it, by addition. But I realize this is touchy ground to tread within the movement, so I'll just shut up about it, and continue on with Cesca's talking points.

[I should note, before we begin, that I have not contacted Bob Cesca about this homage to his column (which sounds so much better than "ripping his column off," don't you think?), and sincerely hope he won't take offense. I thought his column was brilliant and forceful -- the whole thing is well worth reading -- and he came up with much snappier talking points that I usually manage here. Also, his have links embedded in the talking points, with more information for those interested. Bob, if you have any problem with this in any way, contact me via my website and let me know. All the introductory comments below are mine, and all the text of the talking points are Cesca's.]

 

1
   GOP filibusters deficit reduction

Cesca leads into his list of talking points with the question: "What would the American Jobs Act have accomplished?" The answers are things Republicans are usually on the record as supporting -- when Obama doesn't suggest them, that is. The first of these is the current Holy Grail in RepublicanLand, deficit reduction.

The bill would have reduced the deficit by $6 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Republicans filibustered deficit reduction.

 

2
   GOP filibusters two million new jobs

This figure needs to be repeated over and over again: "nearly two million jobs." This defines the debate more than even the name of the bill itself. Which side are you on, in the jobs debate?

The bill would have created nearly two million new jobs. The Republicans filibustered the creation of two million new jobs.

 

3
   GOP filibusters America's economic growth

Another supposedly-holy Republican goal: growth. You're either for growth, or you're for a double-dip recession.

The bill would have increased the gross domestic product (GDP) by two points. The Republicans filibustered increasing the GDP.

 

4
   GOP filibusters a business tax cut

Yet again, an idea Republicans usually support in knee-jerk fashion: lowering taxes (especially business taxes).

The bill would have cut taxes for 98 percent of businesses. The Republicans filibustered a tax cut for businesses.

 

5
   GOP filibusters helping the troops

This one is just odious. You either support the troops, or you don't. Republicans like to loudly proclaim such support, but when it comes to voting for it, they are often absent-without-leave. Democrats need to make this a bigger deal than they normally do.

The bill would have offered a tax credit for military veterans returning from war. The Republicans filibustered a tax credit for the troops.

 

6
   GOP filibusters reducing unemployment

This one is an easy answer every time the unemployment rate comes up for discussion, from this point on.

The bill would have reduced unemployment by a full percentage point. The Republicans filibustered a reduction in unemployment.

 

7
   GOP filibusters fiscal responsibility

This one is a harder case to make, because Republicans haven't supported such a concept since the days of Ronald Reagan (a fact which would cause most Republicans' heads to explode today, were they forced to confront it). But the effort should be made nonetheless -- Republicans are against fiscal responsibility.

The bill would have been paid for by a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires -- a surtax that, again, a majority of Republican voters support. The Republicans filibustered paying for the bill.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

109 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [185] -- I Am A 99 Percenter”

  1. [1] 
    Kevin wrote:

    Good thing Michale is on hiatus. Since Bob Cesca banned him from commenting on his site; Michale's head will explode from you giving Cesca credit for ANYTHING. This merely confirms your good taste. Back when I took Huffpo semi-seriously, you, Cesca, and Cenk Uygur were the writers that made me a temporary fan of the site...and led me here and to Cesca's site.
    Anyhew, great post as usual and brace yourself for a bunch of Michale's gibberish when he gets back to flooding the comments section :-)

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kevin -

    Yeah, I have to admit, I miss him, too.

    Heh. Heh heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    CW,

    the coordinator for the miami chapter of the 99 percenters is a friend of a friend. your idea for re-branding is a pretty good idea, so i'll see if i can pass it along.

    ~joshua

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Back when I took Huffpo semi-seriously, you, Cesca, and Cenk Uygur were the writers that made me a temporary fan of the site.

    Kevin- Me too! That is, Chris, Cenk, and Cesca. Interesting ...

    Good thing Michale is on hiatus.

    Is he on vacation? I was actually starting to wonder if he was ok.

    -David

  5. [5] 
    Kevin wrote:

    David, I think you have great taste, too :-) Re. Michale, he announced he'd be absent for a while working on his business...check previous comment threads.

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Re. Michale, he announced he'd be absent for a while working on his business...check previous comment threads.

    I must have missed that. Have been a bit busy myself lately. Well, it's good to hear that it's just business. But shoot, I'm kind of interested in his take on Occupy Wall Street.

    I think you have great taste, too :-)

    To quote a friend of mine: "Great minds think alike ... and we do too!"

    :)

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    since we all seem to be missing michale's input, i will re-post a link he shared here a week or so ago. it's from fox news so naturally there's a hard right-wing slant, but it's surprisingly fair to the overall spirit of the movement.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/03/occupy-wall-street-not-just-another-liberal-protest/

    "That’s the crux of the problem with Occupy Wall Street. It doesn’t distinguish between real problems Americans have and lots of things that reflect poor choices. But they are right that many Americans face true pain and the elite of both political parties seems completely out of touch about it."

    tea party and ows solidarity? perhaps. if you think about it from a media perspective, the two movements do seem to have quite a bit in common. when michale returns, he can evaluate whether i've adequately represented his views.

  8. [8] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The big difference between the two movements seem to be the 99 percenters are becoming a global movement.

    Not sure if that will help or hurt them as far as American politics goes...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am caught up for the day so I figured I would chime in here real quick.. (Yea, I know, CW.. It's in my blood! Bite me!! :D hehehehehe)

    Good thing Michale is on hiatus. Since Bob Cesca banned him from commenting on his site; Michale's head will explode from you giving Cesca credit for ANYTHING. This merely confirms your good taste.

    ohh I dunno about THAT... :D

    Cesca's head is so far up Obama's ass, if not for race, it would be impossible to tell where one stops and the other starts. I don't think Cesca has ever criticized Obama once, despite many criticism worthy events. CW is so far above Cesca as to be on a different planet..

    Further, his "Talking Points" are pure unadulterated Left Wing spin without the benefit of hard facts to back them up. Were I so inclined I could answer each and every TP with equally "factual" Right Wing spin... Such is the nature of TPs saturated with spin and ideology..

    when michale returns, he can evaluate whether i've adequately represented his views.

    For the most part, dead on.. :D

    The problem with the OWS in particular and the "Tax The Rich" meme in general is that it is, in reality, utter useless..

    Unless you have fiscal discipline, taxing the rich will do absolutely NO good whatsoever. It's like masturbation. It makes you feel good for a bit, but there is no describable lasting benefit and it just leaves you with a mess to clean up afterwards.

    The OWS/TaxTheRich is completely a political agenda designed to serve the Democratic Party agenda. Take Buffett for example?? He wails and whines that he and his buddies should be taxed more, yet his company OWES back taxes to the US to the tune of $1+ BILLION dollars!!

    And this guy gets his own "rule" from the Obama Administration!!???

    What a frakin' hypocrite!!

    You want more hypocrisy?? The OWSers whine and cry about corporate greed and the like, yet the happily tool their way along with their IPODs and IPADs, the very instruments of corporate "greed"...

    That's why it's really hard to stomach ANYTHING that comes from the Left regarding this corporate greed/tax the rich mentality..

    Because reality shows it to be nothing more than one big head fake with absolutely ZERO chance of it actually HELPING this country.

    Don't take my word for it. Look at what Obama supporter Mort Zuckerman has to say about it..

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576628673446417268.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

    He makes an awful lot of sense. Especially in how he explains why corporations are holding onto their money instead of using it to hire more workers. He is about the 3rd or 4th "rich guy" I have read who all gave the exact same reasons why they are holding onto their money. Because they don't know if they are going to need it to meet all the regulatory and tax obligations the Obama administration is pushing...

    You may complain about Cain's 9 9 9 plan, but at least it's a

    1> REAL plan

    2> That's easy to understand

    and

    3> Will actually DO something about the shattered economy that's been ripped to shreds by the Obama Administration..

    My work is letting me go out and "play" today :D so I'll be in and out.

    Back to the grindstone starting tomorrow.. :(

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, his "Talking Points" are pure unadulterated Left Wing spin without the benefit of hard facts to back them up.

    That would be Cesca's TPs, not CWs... :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You may complain about Cain's 9 9 9 plan, but at least it's a

    4> it's already been simulated in Sim City 4?

    Of course the one part missing from that particular story was whether or not it worked in the video game or needed to be tweaked to be successful...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course the one part missing from that particular story was whether or not it worked in the video game or needed to be tweaked to be successful...

    You mean as opposed to Obama's plan which is always perfect??? :D

    Besides, I thought that the Left's word of the moment is "fair"...

    What could be more fair than everyone paying the same percentage of their income??

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    But shoot, I'm kind of interested in his take on Occupy Wall Street.

    Well, Democrats have thrown their support behind the OWSers...

    But then again, so have the American Nazis and the American Communists....

    I'm just sayin'..... :^D

    Michale....

  14. [14] 
    Kevin wrote:

    And now, back from his own alternate universe....

  15. [15] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Besides, I thought that the Left's word of the moment is "fair"...

    What could be more fair than everyone paying the same percentage of their income??

    I posted a link to his plan (from his campaign website). Did you read it? My take was it was more bullet points than a real plan but it looks like serious tax reduction for the rich and small business and a serious tax hike on the lower middle class down to the poor. No capital gains tax and no tax on repatriated profits. 9% on small business with no payroll taxes but all expenses can be deducted...far from fair, it's more like a screw the poor plan.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now, back from his own alternate universe....

    If you have anything that disputes what I have posted, now's the time...

    "If you have a better idea, now's the time."
    -Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    :D

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The best explanation I've seen yet of Mr. Cain's 9.99 large pizza to go tax plan:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

    Keep in mind, Bruce Bartlett was Reagan's economic advisor ... so this isn't exactly "left".

    As far as I can tell Cain's plan is a huge transfer of wealth from those in the bottom and middle to those at the top.

    Call it "Extreme Trickle Down". Welcome back, Michale. Glad to see you didn't get sucked into the wormhole :)

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can that be??

    Everyone pays the same percentage of their income as taxes...

    How exactly is it NOT fair???

    Welcome back, Michale. Glad to see you didn't get sucked into the wormhole :)

    Takes a lot more than a spatial phenomena to keep me away from CW.COM :D

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    p.s. Jimmy Fallon has one of the funniest pieces I've seen in a while on the GOP candidates:

    http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/gop-political-ads-101211/1361870/#.Tpl6eQb8-vg.facebook

    The best 7 minutes I've seen all wknd.

  20. [20] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Everyone pays the same percentage of their income as taxes...

    As I said read the plan. That is just not true. It does not tax the very rich in the way they make the most money: capitol gains. If there were a 9% tax on capitol gains you might have a point.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    As I understand it (and I may be wrong. It's been known to happen) taxes were already paid on the money that became "capital gains"..

    So, what you are saying is that people who choose to invest their money to make the economy productive should be penalized by taxing it AGAIN..

    And this is fair???

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Ah, no. They are taxes on the net profits from said money not the original money it's self. They can also take tax deductions for losses...I wonder if Cain will keep those?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ah, no. They are taxes on the net profits from said money not the original money it's self.

    So, let's say I make 10,000.. That money is taxed...

    I then pay my bills and have 3,000 left over. I use that money to invest in the economy. For my generosity, I am payed a dividend. THAT money is also taxed, even though it was taxed once before...

    They can also take tax deductions for losses...I wonder if Cain will keep those?

    I bet the Left would want to keep Earned Income Credit and the like, no??

    Why should the poor get the breaks and the rich get stuck with the bill???

    Seems to me that the Left wants to reward mediocrity and lousy behavior...

    I read that one of the demands of the OWSers (or a Democrat politician, hard to tell the difference these days) is that everyone gets a guaranteed income of $50K a year....

    How kewl is that!!!???

    We'll have a nation of irresponsible kids living in their parent's basements doing absolutely nothing but being a leech and a drain on society...

    Kewl, eh???

    Speaking of the OWSers???

    President Obama-"I support the protesters and their frustrations"

    OWSer Protesters, Portland-"F*CK THE USA"

    Yea, real peach of a movement there, eh?? :^/

    Michale.......

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Five Lessons 'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters Could Learn About Finding a Job from 'I Love Lucy'
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/16/five-lessons-occupy-wall-street-protesters-could-learn-about-finding-job-from/

    Very good points....

    Michale......

  25. [25] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am payed a dividend. THAT money is also taxed, even though it was taxed once before...

    Uhh... when was it taxed? You could sell the investment and end up with the original amount plus the dividend. That makes the dividend net income above the original investment. I have heard it argued that the corporation paid taxes on the dividend but the investment could just just as easily been commodity futures, or real estate...

  26. [26] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Why should the poor get the breaks and the rich get stuck with the bill???

    Are you joking? If low capitol gains is not enough add to it all the write offs and other tax tricks. The rich have plenty of breaks...

    As too the rest, sounds like you are up to your old tricks and assuming a homogeneity that doesn't really exist. One sign does not apply to every single member of the protest. Otherwise I've seen some doozies at tea party rallies...

    And the fox news opinion piece is about the stupidest thing you have ever posted and what I would expect from fox news. Pretty pretentious to assume that applies to all the 99 percenters. None of them have jobs, a sense of humor or loyalty to something higher than themselves? Really?

  27. [27] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, let's say I make 10,000.. That money is taxed...

    I then pay my bills and have 3,000 left over. I use that money to invest in the economy. For my generosity, I am payed a dividend. THAT money is also taxed, even though it was taxed once before...

    welcome back! the underlying question here is whether or not the corporation is the same entity as the people who invest in it. people generally don't invest in corporations out of the goodness of their hearts. they invest because they anticipate a possible profit as a result, just like a bank pays interest, but with a much higher risk and much higher potential reward. on the other extreme of risk, if we go to a casino and lose 10,000, the casino pays tax on it. if we go back to the same casino and win 10,000, we pay tax on it, even if they already paid tax on the 10,000 we initially lost.

    we all pay tax on the interest a bank pays us, and the bank also pays a tax on the interest we pay it. the casino pays taxes when we lose and we pay taxes when we win. both transactions are taxed. are we being taxed twice, or are we and the bank and the casino distinct entities?

    if corporations ought not pay taxes apart from the people who invest in them (as is a responsibility of people) then they ought not have any other rights of people, like free speech or even the right to exist.

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    for that matter, if a corporation is defined as a person then it's a huge violation of the thirteenth amendment for people to own it, profit off its work and demand that it pay them for the privilege.

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How can that be? Everyone pays the same percentage of their income as taxes.

    The easiest answer to this is that if your income comes entirely from capital gains, you pay ZERO.

    Mr. Cain conveniently exempts capital gains.

    Now I know you argued for not taxing capital gains because you feel it would be taxed twice.

    If this is the case, how come you don't feel the same about a sales tax?

    Because I hate to break it to 'ya, but that's your income being taxed again.

    Let's be honest, Michale, and call it what it is, a huge tax handout to the rich.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Looks like Obama is reading your commentaries again.. :D

    White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street, Says Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%

    I guarantee that the Left's support for the OWSers is going to come back and bite the Democratic Party on the ass...

    Bashi,

    Are you joking? If low capitol gains is not enough add to it all the write offs and other tax tricks. The rich have plenty of breaks...

    And so do the poor...

    What you say we get rid of ALL of it. No more loopholes for the rich OR the poor.. We'll see if this country is any better off with EVERYONE paying taxes, rather than just the top 20% or 30% or whatever it is..

    One sign does not apply to every single member of the protest. Otherwise I've seen some doozies at tea party rallies...

    The Left sure tried to paint the Tea Party as racist based on "one" non-existent event...

    But that wasn't just an isolated incident amongst the OWSers.. I can give you link after link after link detailing the filth, the anti-American sentiment, the public sex, the drug usage, the freeloading, business owners complaining and so on and so on. And it's taking place at every Occupy event all across the country.

    The Left is oh sooo desperate to have their own Tea Party that they will latch on to ANY protest. We'll see how many Ooowwwzers there are after the first below-freezing temps... :D

    None of them have jobs, a sense of humor or loyalty to something higher than themselves? Really?

    There is documented evidence that this is exactly the case. Sure, not each and every one of them, but large enough to be representative of the group as a whole..

    If they spent HALF the time looking for a job that they do causing problems for other people who DO have jobs, then this country would be much better off...

    NYpoet

    welcome back!

    Alas, it's but temporary.. :( Hopefully after this week I can get back to my regular routine of torturing Weigantians on a daily basis, instead of just on the weekends.. :D

    David (& NYpoet too)

    I am guessing we're likely never to agree on the taxes issue. What's "fair" in the realm of taxation, etc etc etc..

    But let's approach it from another angle...

    Let's say that the Left gets EXACTLY what it wants..

    The Left gets to stick it to the Rich and the rich starts paying 99% of their income to the federal government as taxes..

    Ignoring for the moment that the "rich" won't be rich way for long, because there would be no incentive for them to continue to succeed at business, let me ask you one simple question.

    If the Left got ALL that it wanted with regards to their Stick It To The Rich meme... Would this country be any better off??

    Ya'all and I know the answer is, obviously, NO...

    Because without the fiscal discipline to use the money wisely, we'll be right back into a financial hole in a couple years. But THIS time, we won't have the Rich to stick it to for more money...

    So, all this discussion about taxing the rich or not taxing the poor is completely and utterly moot...

    To give it a personal analogy....

    Up until January of 2001, I have always thought of "paradise" as a place where money was not a concern... My own personal utopia was a place where I could do ANYTHING I wanted without having to worry an iota about what it cost.. All my problems would dissolve away just as long as I had money to take care of things...

    As you may (or may not) know, I was able to achieve my "paradise" thru... ahem.. let's say "gray" market means. :D My first year in business net'ed me a corporate income of 3.8 million.. My wife and I were drawing salaries of $11K a month..

    Paradise found...

    Guess what?? I still had problems. I still had aches and pains and hassles and kids being a pain in the ass and everything.. Sure I had money. I could (and often did) go into a bar, order a beer, leave a hundred dollar bill and walk out.. (Have to admit, that was one of the highlights of my "paradise".. :D)

    But my point is that I, in reality, discovered what most everyone else knows, in theory...

    Money doesn't buy happiness. Sure, it makes a great down payment.. But it's not the answer..

    Every time we get into these discussions, I think back to that time..

    Because ya'all seem to think that, once we take all the money from the rich, all this countries problems will be solved..

    But it won't happen.. Because our government doesn't know HOW to use that money responsibly. For the good of the country...

    So, I say that, before we start talking about who to tax and who NOT to tax, our government FIRST AND FOREMOST needs to get it's spending under control...

    Our government doesn't DESERVE any more money until such time as it can show the American people that it can use the money wisely.

    That's what it all boils down to..

    Regardless of whether your in favor of soaking the rich or making the poor pay their fair share, you simply HAVE to agree that the discipline to use the money wisely is sorely lacking in DC and it's THAT lack of discipline that must be addressed first..

    If it's not, we're just throwing good money after bad and we can take the rich for all they have and we'll STILL have the same problems, the same aches and pains, the same hassles and the same kids who are the same pain in the ass..

    Because more money is NOT the answer.

    Discipline and responsibility are the answers...

    I know ya'all hate it when I say it this way, but it really is... THAT simple...

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Left gets to stick it to the Rich and the rich starts paying 99% of their income to the federal government as taxes.

    Huh? Dude. Who are you even talking about?

    No one has said anything of the sort.

    I don't know where you're getting this "stick it to the rich" stuff.

    The only things I hear people saying are:

    1. Trickle down hasn't worked so let's stop giving tax breaks to the wealthy

    2. What did we get for our $800 billion bailout? Why did we do that again? Wasn't this a massive scam?

    3. Did anything change? Or are the people who caused the problem still in power?

    All things that seem pretty sensible to me. So I'm not sure who the heck you're talking about. Can you name one person who wants to tax rich people at 99%?

    It's a very heartfelt story you shared and I'm glad you believe money isn't everything. Yet I can't understand why you keep wanting to give more to the people who caused the economic crash.

    -David

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    David & NYpoet,

    I just wanted to add that you both make good points about the taxes and being taxed twice, etc etc..

    Don't think I didn't notice! :D

    Michale....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    All the things you mentioned were the fault of the Obama Administration.. And, you will remember I was against each and every bail out up to and including the latest so-called JOBS bill...

    Obama's JOBS bill is simply more of the same.

    So how can you support that?? And him???

    All things that seem pretty sensible to me. So I'm not sure who the heck you're talking about. Can you name one person who wants to tax rich people at 99%?

    That was a fer instance.. But, I bet if we polled all the Ooowwzers, I would wager that taxing the rich at 99% would be eminently preferable.. :D

    But my last point is still valid..

    Taxing the rich more will do absolutely NO good unless the government spends the money more wisely.

    Go back to my teenager analogy..

    Do you give a spoiled teenager MORE money so he can prove he is responsible??

    No, of course not. You wait until the teenager shows he is responsible with what he has.. THEN you reward that good behavior with more money..

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    Well we can only hope Dems try to say the OWS represent them the the way Tea party resembles the The Republicans.

    I mean who doesn't want a bunch of foolish drug using partiers, who openly engage in anti-semitic behavior,

    http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2010/10/circus-parade-of-freaks-anti-semites.html

    With no real aims except possibly Socialism attacking the very engines of growth of the country representing them?

    Here are some more comparisons between the "crazy" Tea party and the "Sane" OWS:

    "Read the Bill!" = Costs Nothing = Crazy

    "Forgive All Student Loans!" = Costs $1 Trillion = Sane

    Dress Up As Ben Franklin & Betsy Ross = Crazy

    Dress Up As Zombies, Defecate On Police Cars & Attack Museum Guards = Sane

    The list goes on. Go ahead and attach your wagon to the group that best represents the average American, the one that trashes an area they protest in and is filled with bigots or the law abiding, respectful middle aged Tea party.

    I am a proud 53%er.

  35. [35] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    One more link for you:

    http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2010/10/they-pretend-theyre-sane-and-rational_6631.html

    They Pretend They're "Sane And Rational." We Pretend They're Relevant.

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What you say we get rid of ALL of it. No more loopholes for the rich OR the poor.. We'll see if this country is any better off with EVERYONE paying taxes, rather than just the top 20% or 30% or whatever it is..

    That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the Cain 999 plan to which we were talking about...

    There is documented evidence that this is exactly the case. Sure, not each and every one of them, but large enough to be representative of the group as a whole..

    If they spent HALF the time looking for a job that they do causing problems for other people who DO have jobs, then this country would be much better off...

    Really. Documented evidence of their lack of a sense of humor? Or were the "very good points" really just one? Plus did you include those that came down during the weekend protests as jobless or just the ones camping out?

  37. [37] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Well, here is proof they have a sense of humor. Also a good counter to tinsldr2's sign links...

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    All the things you mentioned were the fault of the Obama Administration.

    Forget the blame for a second.

    If you agree that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem, do you agree that we should be looking for other solutions?

    -David

  39. [39] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    For bashibozuk

    I have a pretty good sense of humor but some things just are not funny. Like the OWS group in Portland that chanted F(cut) The USA over and over.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/10/17/great_obama_moves_to_exploit_occupy_movements_fury

    So while the signs you point to were funny they were not meant to be taken seriously.

    Is that really the group that you consider your own? While Obama continues to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and brave Men and women are doing valorous acts and answering the call of the Nation, the Protestors you want to align yourself with are going F(bomb) the USA

    And yes more troops are going to Iraq for a planned 1 year deployment next month

  40. [40] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    akadjian wrote:

    "If you agree that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem,"

    I dont agree with that at all.

  41. [41] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Is that really the group that you consider your own?

    Do you share Michale's need for diametric opposition against all other logic? No real complexity of thought?

    I am not one of them but I do not mind their existence. One thing I did notice was how many of the signs were very similar in content with those I have seen in pictures of tea party rallies. Abet with generally better spelling. They share a lot and I would not be too surprised of some crossover...

    the Protestors you want to align yourself with are going F(bomb) the USA

    Meh. Free speech is free speech. If you only focus on the bad, that is all you will see. There was also a sign with "born again American" on it as well. Was that bad?

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "If you agree that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem,"

    I dont agree with that at all.

    it doesn't matter whether or not one of us agrees. it's factual, the trickle-down hypothesis has yet to work in any semblance of the way its adherents purport. at least so far, the supposition that it will work has been a pretty obvious causal factor in the redistribution of wealth from the working, middle and upper-middle classes to the mega-rich. the theory was that lower taxes on the rich would axiomatically benefit all. but thus far, the only ones to benefit from tax cuts on the rich have been the rich.

    thus far, every time since the early 1980's that taxes on the rich have been cut, the economy has taken a nosedive. every time taxes on the rich have gone up a bit, the economy has recovered. could it be a coincidence? possible, but not likely.

  43. [43] 
    dsws wrote:

    Abet with generally better spelling.

    Just had to quote that.

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I dont agree with that at all.

    What about this fundamental principle of trickle down economics?- A rising tide lifts all ships

    That is, if you give to the wealthy, they will raise the level of everyone in society.

    Do you believe this has happened?

    (either Michale or tinsldr2)

  45. [45] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    "What about this fundamental principle of trickle down economics?- A rising tide lifts all ships"

    As a boat owner , I can tell you, that unless your boat is unable to float, the rising tide does lift all ships.

    So yes, as the economy improves it benefits almost everyone.

    Today, almost all Americans have things that were considered Huge luxuries or were unimaginable in past decades.

    Look at the OWS protestors, do they come from families with Multiple Color TV's? Cell Phones? Personal Computers? Cars (maybe not so much if they live in parts of NYC)?

    Compare the poor in America to the poor in Africa, Mid-East or Eastern Europe, the Balkans etc.

    Some of the worst slums in N Philadelphia still have better life then some of the poorest people I saw in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. And Dont even get me started on Africa.

    But look even further then that.

    We now have a sinking economy. Bad unemployment, home foreclosures and poverty are at record levels.

    When the economy is doing better the average person is doing better.

    Improve the economy by freeing up the engines that drive the economy and restoring consumer confidence and it lifts almost all people.

  46. [46] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    nypoet22 wrote:

    "the theory was that lower taxes on the rich would axiomatically benefit all. but thus far, the only ones to benefit from tax cuts on the rich have been the rich."

    Pres Bush cut taxes for ALL Americans and I have benefited from that.

    I am comfortable but middle Class. My father was lower middle class. My son, now a college Freshman, has the opportunity to do better then me economically.

    tax revenues went up after the tax cuts. The first years they drop but as the economy expands they go up.

    The housing bubble was an unrelated event to the change in Tax revenues.

    But all bubbles such as the tech bubble of the 90s or the housing bubble of the first decade of this century are natural market phenomena and are not always related to Tax policy.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Playing catch-up here....

    Splendid posts and links, tinsldr2.

    That's the face of the Oowzers, all right..

    Iddn't it funny that, when Tea Party people have protests it's one big happy folk dance and family picnic..

    When the Left have protests, it's all about property destruction, violating other people's rights and mass arrests...

    I wonder why that is...

    Bashi,

    That's all well and good but it has nothing to do with the Cain 999 plan to which we were talking about...

    You brought up all the loopholes that the rich have that will still be there under the Cain plan. I responded by telling you that the poor have loopholes that benefit them as well..

    Do you want to eliminate ALL loopholes?? Or just the ones that favor the rich????

    Well, here is proof they have a sense of humor. Also a good counter to tinsldr2's sign links...

    No one is claiming the Oowwzers don't have a sense of humor...

    I'm simply wondering where they get off claiming they represent 99% of Americans when the facts are they MAYBE represent about 9% of Americans.. The fringe/lunatic/birther/truther types...

    David,

    Forget the blame for a second.

    I'll remind you of that when we have a GOP president and a GOP Congress... :D

    If you agree that "trickle down" economics is part of the problem, do you agree that we should be looking for other solutions?

    Perhaps..

    But those solutions obviously cannot come from Democrats.. If you think that "trickle down" has failed, then you MUST admit that the Democrat alternative has failed even worse..

    Things under the GOP may have turned crappy.. But things under Democrats have turned out really, really REALLY crappy. Even Obama has said so, albeit not in those exact words..

    So, when Independents and NPAs go to the voting booths next November, their choices will be "crappy" and "really, really, REALLY crappy"....

    Hmmmmmmmm... Seems like a no-brainer to me...

    Bashi,

    I am not one of them but I do not mind their existence.

    That's the problem. The Oowzers are screaming "F*CK THE USA" over and over, being violent, thousands and thousands of arrests..

    And you don't mind their existence...

    What would they have to do for you to "mind their existence"?? Become Republicans?? :D

    Meh. Free speech is free speech. If you only focus on the bad, that is all you will see. There was also a sign with "born again American" on it as well. Was that bad?

    Of the two sentiments, which is more of an apt description of the Oowzers??

    Today, almost all Americans have things that were considered Huge luxuries or were unimaginable in past decades.

    Look at the OWS protestors, do they come from families with Multiple Color TV's? Cell Phones? Personal Computers? Cars (maybe not so much if they live in parts of NYC)?

    Compare the poor in America to the poor in Africa, Mid-East or Eastern Europe, the Balkans etc.

    Some of the worst slums in N Philadelphia still have better life then some of the poorest people I saw in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo etc. And Dont even get me started on Africa.

    Can't argue with that logic, guys... :D

    Kinda like what I referred to before.. The Oowzers rail and denigrate corporate greed, yet the covet all the neato stuff that corporate greed gave us.. Don't EVEN get me started about the supreme hypocrisy shown by the Michael Moores, the Susan Sarandons and other like-minded morons...

    My overall point is this..

    Raising taxes, not raising taxes isn't the central issue...

    Unless our government learns fiscal discipline, then giving the government more money will simply delay the inevitable...

    If you want to tax the rich, fine.. If you want to tax the poor, fine...

    But until the government learns to live within it's means, more taxes won't fix anything. No matter WHERE those taxes come from..

    Michale....

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We now have a sinking economy. Bad unemployment, home foreclosures and poverty are at record levels.

    Agreed.

    Look at the OWS protestors, do they come from families with Multiple Color TV's? Cell Phones? Personal Computers? Cars (maybe not so much if they live in parts of NYC)?

    And we also have fire and don't write on stone tablets. You're equating technology with wealth.

    The rising tide lifted a few to unimaginable wealth over the past several decades and everyone else hasn't made any strides since the 60s or 70s.

    It's unfortunate, but the odds are against your son doing better than you economically.

    Improve the economy by freeing up the engines that drive the economy and restoring consumer confidence and it lifts almost all people.

    Not necessarily ...
    1) Deregulating the finance industry (or "freeing" as you would call it) lead to the 2008 crash
    2) Many businesses are experiencing record profits right now. But it's not "trickling down".

    More tax breaks is not going to help anyone but the extremely wealthy. They've got plenty of investment money to spend right now and they're not spending it.

    You grow a business when demand grows. And that's the issue right now. Not enough demand. You don't hire more people because you get a tax break. Why would you if there's no additional demand?

    Which is why I believe we need "demand-side" economics.

    -David

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/17/democrats-should-take-lesson-from-montana/

    That's what efficient government looks like...

    Way ta go, Montana!!

    "Wat ta go, I Da Ho!"
    -Ham, TOY STORY

    :D

    Michale....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And we also have fire and don't write on stone tablets. You're equating technology with wealth.

    No, he is equating POSSESSION of technology with wealth...

    The protestors physically own these trappings of wealth.. They were given to them or the protesters purchased them..

    Either way, it kind of negates their claim of being poor and downtrodden...

    It's unfortunate, but the odds are against your son doing better than you economically.

    Unless, of course, we get a GOP administration.. :D Just kidding.. A little...

    Which is why I believe we need "demand-side" economics.

    And how does one create "demand"???

    By letting the small businesses create products that people demand...

    But small businesses CAN'T create new and exciting products because they don't have the confidence in the government that allows them to free up the funds...

    There is a common theme I am seeing whenever I read about CEOs of large companies. Be they Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, there is a common thread..

    They ALL are holding onto their money because they don't know what kinds of taxes and regulations they are facing in the future...

    Government cannot create lasting jobs... Private sector can..

    But government CAN create confidence that allows the private sector to create jobs..

    Our current administration has failed and failed miserably in creating that necessary confidence..

    That is what it all boils down to..

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Our current administration has failed and failed miserably in creating that necessary confidence.

    You mean they haven't kissed Wall St's ass enough? Because they've sure tried ... heheh.

    I do believe you are correct though that Republicans would kiss harder and for much longer.

    They ALL are holding onto their money because they don't know what kinds of taxes and regulations they are facing in the future.

    Michale, you have some experience in business. When I was running a business, if demand picked up, I hired. If I needed an artist or a writer, I hired one. It was as simple as that.

    If I held off because of some supposed "fear" then I miss an opportunity to make money.

    So I think this is a bunch of horsesh!t about businesses holding off from "fear". They're not hiring because there's no demand or they can find cheaper labor elsewhere.

    Some people are using this "fear" tactic to say we need to reduce regulations and taxes and it will magically improve our economy.

    In other words, back to trickle down theory. Which again, hasn't worked.

    In every healthy economy there's ever been, government has played a strong role in ensuring competition, fairness, and proper regulation.

    I can understand your anger against government (because it's being run by those at the top- or crony capitalism, as Sarah Palin said), but I don't believe the answer is to get rid of it. That's what the cronies want.

    The answer is to reform government and get the money out of government (we've talked about this 2nd point before and on this I think we share some common ground) and get government working for the benefit of all again, not just for those at the top.

    -David

  52. [52] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    "The rising tide lifted a few to unimaginable wealth over the past several decades and everyone else hasn't made any strides since the 60s or 70s.

    It's unfortunate, but the odds are against your son doing better than you economically. "

    Not at all. I am 48 and doing much better then I was in past decades when it comes to economic issues and wealth. I am also doing much better then my father (who was a great man and worked hard and taught me a work ethic)

    My sons success will depend entirely on him. If he takes advantage of the opportunities we are offering him that I didnt have and works hard he will do much better then I did as far as wealth.

    Non-wealth factors such as family, health, happiness etc are not really the topic of the column.

    Remember we all have the right to the Pursuit of Happiness, not actual happiness.

    One of my dad's friends was very wealthy, he told me "money can't buy happiness but being poor sucks".

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean they haven't kissed Wall St's ass enough? Because they've sure tried ... heheh.

    Agreed.. :D

    I do believe you are correct though that Republicans would kiss harder and for much longer.

    That may be.. But yet, things were better under Republicans...

    The answer is to reform government and get the money out of government (we've talked about this 2nd point before and on this I think we share some common ground) and get government working for the benefit of all again, not just for those at the top.

    I completely agree..

    Where we differ is how to go about it..

    The Left, as epitomized by the Oowzers, want wealth redistribution... That's a black train to hell...

    I don't know enough to know what the correct solution is..

    Going by past evidence, I would have to say that the GOP's way is less frak'ed up than the DP's way..

    “It is easy to know the difference between right and wrong. The difficulty is choosing the wrong that is more right. Oh don't listen to me. I'm shit-faced”
    -Annette Benning, UNDER SEIGE

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thieves preying on fellow protesters

    “Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

    “I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

    Poor and downtrodden and jobless.. Yet she has (ok HAD) a $5500 MAC....

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Left, as epitomized by the Oowzers, want wealth redistribution.

    Not so. What they want is a system that works for more people.

    The use of "wealth distribution" as a tactic cracks me up though. Because conservatives are completely ok advocating for a system that redistributes wealth upwards.

    But to advocate for better working capitalism? That's horrible?

    To advocate that the key to capitalism is proper regulation, investing in key priorities like energy and education, and reducing corporate influence in government is bad?

    Jeffrey Sachs had a good bit on Morning Edition this morning which pretty accurately reflects my views:

    http://www.npr.org/2011/10/18/141421746/income-disparity-and-the-price-of-civilization

    -David

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thieves preying on fellow protesters

    I guess the Oowzers are all for redistribution of wealth...

    Unless it is THEIR wealth that is being re-distributed... :D

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not so. What they want is a system that works for more people.

    Sorry, David, but that is simply not factual...

    Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

    The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

    Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#

    Wait... Are we talking about the Left or the Oowzers that the Left embraces??

    Jeffrey Sachs had a good bit on Morning Edition this morning which pretty accurately reflects my views:

    While that may adequately reflect your views, it does not reflect the views of the Oowzers...

    Michale....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    To advocate that the key to capitalism is proper regulation,

    Unfortunately, the Democrats idea of "proper" seems to be at odds with a healthy economy...

    investing in key priorities like energy and education,

    Ditto for "priorities"... Although I have to admit I kinda like the energy and education priorities. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be the Democratic Party's priorities.. Why else did they do CrapCare first???

    and reducing corporate influence in government is bad?

    How about reducing government influence in the corporate world?? A little government influence is a necessary evil. A little scalpel here a little scalpel there..

    The Obama is swinging a BattleAx and has the corporations scurrying for cover, taking their money with them...

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    Michale,

    Don't you know? If the capitalist pigs gave everyone a laptop then they wouldn't have to steal one.

    An 18 year old from FLA with a 5K laptop. How do you think he got it? A summer job stocking shelves and delivering papers or a rich daddy?

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Lemme get this straight ...

    You're posting "research" about the Wall Street protesters conducted by the Wall Street Journal?

    I could have told you what their research would show before they conducted it.

    Why don't you go down and talk to some of the people, Michale? Find out for yourself.

    I participated in one of our rallies here and what I saw doesn't match the WSJ "poll".

    -David

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, the research was conducted by DOUGLAS SCHOEN's polling firm...

    Is there any evidence to suggest that the polling is flawed, other than the media outlet that carried it and your dislike of the results?? :D

    There are thousands and thousands of articles from people who HAVE attended protests and seen first hand this kind of left wing activism... One only needs but look...

    I participated in one of our rallies here and what I saw doesn't match the WSJ "poll".

    Was there any screaming of "F*CK THE USA" at your rally?? Anyone crap on a police car??? Destroy personal property?? Mass arrests???

    No??

    Then maybe you were at a Tea Party rally... :D

    "Aw com'on. That was damn funny!"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale....

  62. [62] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    "investing in key priorities like energy and education, "

    And yet we are not investing wisely in energy. That is part of the plan Perry is advocating. We are sitting on untapped energy resources and the Gov red tape is preventing us from accessing them.

    Then the OWS are out there complaining about the corporations that do try and harness that energy with the President's backing.

    As for education, more money is not the answer, but a redirection of that money away from federal bureaucracy and unions and to the teachers and schools where it is needed is a start.

    But a bottom line emphasis on education by families and individuals will do more then any infusion of cash.

    "The United States spends more money per student than any country on the planet save Luxembourg. In 2007, American taxpayers spent an average of $111,000 on a student's K-12 education"

    How do our students do compared to those countries?

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Is there any evidence to suggest that the polling is flawed, other than the media outlet that carried it and your dislike of the results?

    In order to judge polls for accuracy, you have to see the questions, how it was conducted, and the sample base.

    Without this there can be no analysis of the poll either way - good or bad.

    If WSJ is sponsoring and not showing this information, it raises questions.

    -David

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    In order to judge polls for accuracy, you have to see the questions, how it was conducted, and the sample base.

    I have to give you this one, as that is the same argument I use with regards to the TAX THE RICH polls everyone around here likes so much...

    So, point to you.. :D

    Michale.....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am saying is that the Democratic Party is making a HUGE tactical error by jumping on the Oowzer bandwagon..

    Because, inevitably, the protests will turn more and more violent and, rightly or wrongly, the DP will get the blame....

    The Democrats are soo desperate for a response to the Tea Party, they are ignoring this...

    Michale.....

  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And how does one create "demand"???

    By letting the small businesses create products that people demand...

    no, demand is not just how much people WANT to buy, it's also how much they are ABLE to buy. the reason people of modest means have cell phones and internet is that they're allowed to buy things they can't even come close to affording. as the uber-wealthy investor class has acquired more wealth, most of the rest of us have acquired more debt. i'm a bit of an exception myself because i've had a supportive family, lived cheaply and won scholarships.

    but in the old days credit cards had strict limits, and wouldn't let you borrow what you couldn't afford to. people now are in debt up to their ears, which is encouraged and abetted by usury and banking deregulation. thus, all the neat new gadgets are less what people own than what they're being jerked around by.

    Was there any screaming of "F*CK THE USA" at your rally?? Anyone crap on a police car??? Destroy personal property?? Mass arrests???

    as you so rightly point out when the rest of us do it in the other direction, you know darn well that is a skewed portrayal, and there are just as many TP wackjobs as there are among the 99%-ers. as someone suggested, perhaps they're even some of the same ones at both.

    As for education, more money is not the answer, but a redirection of that money away from federal bureaucracy and unions and to the teachers and schools where it is needed is a start.

    most of the waste in education is not federal, it's state and local. the explosion of excessive standardized testing under Bush and Obama has taken even more funding out of the school and classroom, without addressing the initial waste.

    if you believe that paying teachers ought to be part of the equation, it's unconscionable to advocate an end to unions without any suitable replacement to bargain collectively for pay and working conditions, or to watchdog hiring and firing practices. Teacher unions may have their flaws as professional organizations when compared to the AMA or American Bar, but getting rid of them in education would be like getting rid of the mortar that fills a crack in a dam. unless you want the whole structure to fall apart, you can't get rid of unions unless you first put something better there to do the same job.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    as you so rightly point out when the rest of us do it in the other direction, you know darn well that is a skewed portrayal, and there are just as many TP wackjobs as there are among the 99%-ers. as someone suggested, perhaps they're even some of the same ones at both.

    Actually, it's not a skewed portrayal.. Google is replete with hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of property destruction, anti-American sentiment and mass arrests from Oowzer protests all across the country..

    Actions strangely absent from Tea Party protests with the exception of Left wing provocateurs here and there...

    In short (too late.. :D) the violent and loud and obnoxious and law-breaking sentiment is the norm with the OWS protests and the exception in Tea Party protests..

    Historical fact bears this out...

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consider all the groups that have embraced the OWS protests...

    China
    Iran
    Venezuela
    Cuba
    The American Socialist Party
    The American Nazi Party
    The American Communist Party

    Seriously, now..

    Does the Democratic Party want to be on the same side as THOSE groups???

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Google is replete with hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of property destruction, anti-American sentiment and mass arrests

    by all reports i've read, 99% of the 99%-ers have been peaceful as well. the only confirmed harm i've found is by the police, against people who were trying to go places where they weren't permitted. but if one reads it on the internet, it must be true. as for "anti-american sentiment," that is highly subject to interpretation. one (although that one is not me) might argue that sentiment opposed to our current government is in actuality very pro-american.

  70. [70] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Consider all the groups that have embraced the OWS protests...

    China
    Iran
    Venezuela
    Cuba
    The American Socialist Party
    The American Nazi Party
    The American Communist Party

    I've heard that in china and cuba they like rice too. shall we all therefore abandon all use of rice and rice-based products?

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've heard that in china and cuba they like rice too. shall we all therefore abandon all use of rice and rice-based products?

    That's comparing apples and Eskimos...

    Unless you think there is a valid comparison between a murderous, psychotic and repressive ideology and a food group...

    "I refuse to be part of an organization that would have me as a member."

    Will Rogers said that... Or was it Buck Rogers??

    Anyways, it's a valid sentiment.

    I simply cannot conceive that ANY US political Party would want to be mentioned in the same context as China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, The American Socialist Party, The American Nazi Party and The American Communist Party.

    It simply shows how desperate the Democratic Party is to have it's own "Tea Party" movement...

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    but if one reads it on the internet, it must be true.

    Not necessarily...

    But if one reads it a thousand times on the Internet from a thousand different sources, it's a safe bet it's true...

    GOOGLE

    arrests "Occupy Wall Street" 229 MILLION Hits

    arrests "Tea Party" 31 MILLION Hits..

    Granted, many of the "hits" are likely misleading..

    For example, Tea party group slams Occupy Wall Street; arrests grow - latimes.com was one of the hits on the TEA PARTY search...

    But even with that, the disparity between the number of arrested for OWS and the number of arrested at Tea Party events, one can make a logical analysis as to which group is the more violent and anti-USA group....

    I don't recall ANY Tea Party protest that had a rock group singing "F*CK THE USA" or had crapped on police cars...

    I might have missed those, though....

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    "most of the waste in education is not federal, it's state and local."

    But then you go on to talk about the terrible "No Child left Behind policy" of Bush that Obama has expanded!!

    A large part of the budget of the DEPT of Ed could be cut without hurting actual child education.

    Your point about the Union also makes my point. Their focus is not on what is needed to provide a better education but on how to better compensate teachers along with a political agenda.

    But above that you blame banks and lending institutions and portray the underlying belief of liberals that it is Governments role to protect people from themselves because the people are to stupid to do it.

    We simply disagree on whether that is a proper role of the Federal Gov. If a business was fraudulent or criminal that would be one thing.

    But if someone takes out a mortgage they cant afford, to much credit debt, a loan they can't repay etc that is their fault and not the role of the Gov to interfere with.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your point about the Union also makes my point. Their focus is not on what is needed to provide a better education but on how to better compensate teachers along with a political agenda.

    Playing Devil's Advocate here..

    A logical case can be made for the point that Unions exist to serve the TEACHERS, not the students... This is a point that several teachers have explicitly expressed, although the links escape me at the moment..

    No where was this point more evident than in Wisconsin during the protests there. It was obvious then that teachers and Unions looked after their own skins and to hell with the kids..

    Now, as I said, a logical case CAN be made that this is why the Union exists..

    Personally, I think it stinks... But that's a personal opinion...

    Michale.....

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's comparing apples and Eskimos..

    Unless you think there is a valid comparison between a murderous, psychotic and repressive ideology and a food group....

    precisely, that's what i thought you were doing in mentioning 99%-ers in the same context as cuba, neo-nazis and some moron who pooped on a car, and judge prevalence or relevance based on number of non-randomly selected google hits. if you're going to make such far-fetched connections, you might as well serve them on top of rice.

    ishaan tharoor of TIME seems to agree with you that the two movements shouldn't be compared, but his take is slightly different:

    http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/18/why-you-shouldnt-compare-occupy-wall-street-to-the-tea-party/

    on one point i agree with him - 99% is more youth-driven. and of course, young people tend to show their foolishness in different ways from older people, but that doesn't necessarily make the older people any less foolish.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    precisely, that's what i thought you were doing in mentioning 99%-ers in the same context as cuba, neo-nazis and some moron who pooped on a car, and judge prevalence or relevance based on number of non-randomly selected google hits. if you're going to make such far-fetched connections, you might as well serve them on top of rice.

    So, you are saying that, if China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, The American Socialist Party, The American Nazi Party and The American Communist Party had all supported, endorsed and embraced the Tea Party, no one on the Left would have made any sort of connection whatsoever?? :D

    Com'on... I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.... :D

    The character of a person or group can be reliable ascertained by their friends, their supporters, their enemies and their detractors, providing there is sufficient numbers to justify drawing a conclusion...

    If it was just Iran supporting the Oowzers, you would have a point. If it was just the American Nazi Party supporting the Oowzers, again, you would have a point.. But when you have a multitude of some of the most evil and repressive organizations and nations in the world supporting the Oowzers..... Well, it's a safe bet that the agenda of the Oowzers is detrimental to the United States.

    Further, if you have 230 Million Google hits on the phrase, "Michale is an arrogant prick" and you have 30 Million Google hits on the phrase, "Michale is the smartest man in the universe".... It's a pretty safe bet that Michale is, indeed, an arrogant prick... :D

    A disparity of a million google hits might be explained away.. Even a disparity of 50 million google hits might be explained away if the subject is REALLY gullible..

    But a disparity of almost 200 MILLION???

    Occam's Razor definitely comes into play here....

    What's more logical??

    That the algorithm of Google fracked up 200 million times???

    Or there are more arrests of the Oowzers than there are of the Tea Party'ers???

    on one point i agree with him - 99% is more youth-driven. and of course, young people tend to show their foolishness in different ways from older people,

    Michale....

  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But then you go on to talk about the terrible "No Child left Behind policy" of Bush that Obama has expanded!!

    yes, both bush and obama have made the problem worse. you'll find that not everyone here at cw dot-com is so ideologically driven as to ignore relevant facts. we may disagree on which facts are true and which facts are relevant, but there exists room for consensus in the fact-based world.

    I agree with you, the job of unions is to represent their members. Often that actually does coincide with best educational practices, but not always, that point i concede. however, the politicians who run districts, as well as those in washington, tend to overwhelmingly favor measures that are unsupported, unhelpful, or downright bad for children and their education, much worse than teachers or even unions. sometimes this is due to well-intentioned ignorance, but often it's due to caring more about their budgets, their election prospects or their public appearance than the children in the classroom. when it comes to caring about children and looking after their interests, i'd take a hundred teachers over a hundred politicians any day of the week.

    But above that you blame banks and lending institutions and portray the underlying belief of liberals that it is Governments role to protect people from themselves because the people are to stupid to do it.

    We simply disagree on whether that is a proper role of the Federal Gov. If a business was fraudulent or criminal that would be one thing.

    there is a wide range of people. some ARE stupid, some WOULD make poor choices no matter what the situation. but many of the problems that exist are due to banking practices that ARE fraudulent and WERE criminal, at least before the deregulation of the 80's and 90's. People don't have to be stupid to be fooled by sharp business practices. banks don't just give credit to people who don't deserve it, they actively encourage people to take said credit, and intentionally deceive to convince them they can afford things they can't.

    Then banks forged foreclosure documents and been caught doing it. The response from Conservatives (at least in Florida) has been to dismantle any government mechanism for detection or prosecution of those crimes. I don't think people are stupid, just most are ill-prepared to cope with large and ruthless organizations that are too big and powerful to fight without some assistance in the matter.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    My system locked up... I didn't get to finish that...

    on one point i agree with him - 99% is more youth-driven. and of course, young people tend to show their foolishness in different ways from older people,

    So crapping on police cars, causing untold damage to private and public property, costing city agencies mllions and millions of dollars and causing businesses to lose millions of dollars in business revenue....

    That's just "kids being kids"???

    Let me ask you this, so we can get it on record..

    At what point would you repudiate the Oowzers?? What would the Oowzers have to do to lose your support?? Or, as Bashi put it.... At what point would you "mind their existence"... :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    you'll find that not everyone here at cw dot-com is so ideologically driven as to ignore relevant facts.

    Troo dat!!! :D

    Just had ta give ya a call out on this point.. :D

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    At what point would you repudiate the Oowzers?? What would the Oowzers have to do to lose your support?? Or, as Bashi put it.... At what point would you "mind their existence"...

    i support the movement as a whole because it bothers people who i think need to be bothered for any positive change to come about. that doesn't make any of their demands rational, nor does it mean i support the minority who are damnfools and do damnfool things.

    truth be told i wasn't aware any of the tea party folks had been arrested at all; in order for someone to be arrested, they'd have to disobey authorities, like the real tea partiers in 1773 (which, i might add, involved extensive destruction of public and private property). none of the modern-day conservative movement seemed interested in any actual civil disobedience. kids are more likely to take risks with themselves, both good and bad.

    a negative that both 99% and TP have in common is a lot of whining and complaining about processes that most of them really don't understand or appreciate. a positive aspect of both is that they have upset the status quo in their respective sides of the political spectrum. although the tea party started as an astroturfing campaign, it grew into something more organic and potentially beneficial. i have similar hopes for the 99%.

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    that doesn't make any of their demands rational, nor does it mean i support the minority who are damnfools and do damnfool things.

    And when it's the majority that are "damnfools" that are doing damnfool things, what then??

    Personally, I think we're already there, but I can understand how someone who supports the group would not think so.

    none of the modern-day conservative movement seemed interested in any actual civil disobedience.

    If the Tea Party proved ANYTHING, it's that a group can make real change happen without destroying other people's property, violating other people's rights or being arrested..

    In other words, civil disobedience is not required to effect real change...

    In that, the Oowzers have already failed... Once a group has to resort to violence, they have failed in their mission...

    Unless, of course, the mission IS the violence...

    i have similar hopes for the 99%.

    No offense, but that name really bothers me.. These malcontents and spoiled brats and anarchists are NOT "the 99%"... They are professional activists who are enjoying the cause of the day. Once cold weather really hits, you are going to see the group collapse like a house of cards and disappear like yesterday's big thang...

    Ask the girl who got raped in Cleveland by a "tent mate" assigned by the Cleveland Oowzers, if he was "the 99%"...

    These are NOT the 99%.. They are, at most, the 9%.. And that's being generous...

    http://boingboing.net/2011/10/18/luke-skywalker-is-the-99.html

    Now THAT was funny... :D

    Michale.....

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Activists plan plaza protest
    http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2011-10-18/activists-plan-plaza-protest

    Oh gods, it's coming here!!

    Stop the madness!!! :D

    No, let me be serious...

    Let me say that I agree that we DO need more economic equality in this country...

    But the way to achieve it is NOT thru violence, civil disobedience, property destruction and mass arrests.

    The way to achieve it is thru hard work, perseverance and the acknowledgement of EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of people who agree with you.

    That is why I am so cynical about the aims of the Oowzers... The Tea Party showed us that a group can make a real difference, a real change w/o resorting to violence...

    The fact that the Oowzers have to resort to violence, that they have guest speakers who encourage and espouse violence, shows me that violence is their goal...

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can always tell which things conservatives are afraid might work by how much they try to change the story:

    -Paul Krugman is a liberal socialist
    -Elizabeth Warren is a collectivist trying to take away your freedom
    -Obama is a white-hating Muslim anti-American
    -Occupy Wall Street is a violent anarchist movement

    Yada yada blah blah blah blah same old same old ...

    I think it should be a badge of honor to be so accused by the establishment. You know you're onto something when they get so kur-azy :).

    -David

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw, Michale, you might be interested in this article on how the GOP is trying to take back the Tea Party.

    My favorite quote:

    "That's the secret to politics: trying to control a segment of people without those people recognizing that you're trying to control them." - Scott Reed, Republican strategist

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/magazine/does-anyone-have-a-grip-on-the-gop.html?_r=3

    -David

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No offense, but that name really bothers me... These malcontents and spoiled brats and anarchists are NOT "the 99%" They are professional activists

    i realize that you and others on the conservative side still think that, which is why CW suggested the re-frame to begin with. for that matter, framing it differently may help create a better reality. just as the tea party started with a bunch of moneyed interests organizing tax-day rallies for their own benefit, the 99% is not now what it will ultimately become. Even now there are WAY too many worldwide to just be the "usual suspects" who show up at protests, and at least for the time being the numbers are still growing.

    The fact that the Oowzers have to resort to violence, that they have guest speakers who encourage and espouse violence, shows me that violence is their goal...'

    civil disobedience is not necessarily violent. thus far the vast majority of the relatively small amount of reported violence has been against the 99%, not by them. the vast majority of damage to property has been incidental, not intentional. the vast majority of arrests have not been followed by convictions, because people were not doing anything other than exercising their first amendment rights in ways the authorities found inconvenient.

    any large group of people without a single clear purpose will attract a few fringe elements, and unlike the tea partiers, the 99%-ers aren't all going home at 7pm. but 99% of the 99% are not the people you're talking about.

    in short, your scenario has a few holes in it. maybe you're right and the protests won't last. however, i'll lay down a thousand quatloos that hundreds will still be in downtown come the new year.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can always tell which things conservatives are afraid might work by how much they try to change the story:

    -Paul Krugman is a liberal socialist
    -Elizabeth Warren is a collectivist trying to take away your freedom
    -Obama is a white-hating Muslim anti-American
    -Occupy Wall Street is a violent anarchist movement

    You can always tell which things liberals are afraid might work by how much they try to change the story:

    -Karl Rove and Fred Barnes are racists
    -Anyone who speaks against Obama is a racist
    -Obama is The One and should be revered
    -Dick Cheney is Darth Vader and George Bush is Hitler

    Yada yada blah blah blah blah same old same old ...

    I think it should be a badge of honor to be so accused by the liberal establishment. You know you're onto something when they get so kur-azy :).

    Ya see... It works both ways... :D

    Btw, Michale, you might be interested in this article on how the GOP is trying to take back the Tea Party.

    But that still doesn't explain how the Tea Party was able to achieve a real change and a real impact in national politics without resorting to violence, civil disobedience, violating other people's rights, property destruction or mass arrests...

    Why do the Oowzers feel that these things are necessary to achieve their goals when the Tea Party proved that they are not???

    We're not discussing the how the Tea Party ends... We're talking about how it began.. And how some on the Left are trying to make the Oowzers in the Tea Party's image..

    But they can't because there is a huge glaring difference between the Oowzers and the Tea Party.

    The Tea Party achieved their goals w/o violence, civil disobedience, violating other people's rights or mass arrests...

    Where the Tea Party ends is anyone's guess..

    But it's clear that there is really no similarity between the Oowser's and the Tea Party...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    i realize that you and others on the conservative side still think that, which is why CW suggested the re-frame to begin with. for that matter, framing it differently may help create a better reality.

    But that's my point. It ISN'T reality..

    It's wishful thinking...

    but 99% of the 99% are not the people you're talking about.

    The facts say otherwise...

    however, i'll lay down a thousand quatloos that hundreds will still be in downtown come the new year.

    Yea, celebrating the New Year in Times Square... :D

    I'll match your thousand quatloos with the prediction that as seen as we see below-freezing temps in New York City, the Oowzers in New York will cease to exist...

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll match your thousand quatloos with the prediction that as seen as we see below-freezing temps in New York City, the Oowzers in New York will cease to exist...

    That SHOULD read:
    I'll match your thousand quatloos with the prediction that as SOON as we see below-freezing temps in New York City, the Oowzers in New York will cease to exist...

    Grrrrrrrrrr

    Michale....

  90. [90] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can always tell which things liberals are afraid might work by how much they try to change the story.

    The difference is that no one here is using the tactics you talk about. In fact, I don't know if anyone anywhere is using the tactics you talk about. I certainly haven't seen it and I criticize Obama.

    Now there are people here who are using the mis-characterization tactics I mentioned. In fact, they use them all the time.

    That's the difference.

    -David

    p.s. I'm not sure why they like to mis-characterize so much but my guess is because their other arguments are weak.

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    The difference is that no one here is using the tactics you talk about. In fact, I don't know if anyone anywhere is using the tactics you talk about. I certainly haven't seen it and I criticize Obama.

    Awww Com'on...

    No one wants to talk about how crappy CrapCare is. It's all about GOP obstructionism as if it was a crucifixion..

    No one wants to talk about the violence and the property destruction of the Oowzers. It's all about ridiculing the GOP candidates.

    Just because ya'all don't want to talk about the problems on the Left and from the Left doesn't mean that those problems don't exist...

    I get it. It's hard to talk about the boneheaded moves coming from your chosen side... It's much easier to simply ignore them and blast the other side for THEIR boneheaded moves. Of which there are plenty, to be sure..

    But there comes a time when such indulgence in the mistakes of the chosen side gives way to enabling...

    p.s. I'm not sure why they like to mis-characterize so much but my guess is because their other arguments are weak.

    And once again, that's a charge that ALSO applies to the Left.... The rise of the Tea Party and the Left's attempts to destroy it is a perfect example..

    Michale....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    . the vast majority of arrests have not been followed by convictions,

    That's because the Oowzers are trying to extort the courts by intentionally gumming up the works unless the city drops the charges..

    Another laudable tactic just oooozzing with integrity...

    That was sarcasm... :D

    because people were not doing anything other than exercising their first amendment rights in ways the authorities found inconvenient.

    They were breaking the law. They were interfering with OTHER people's rights. They were assaulting police officers...

    If the Tea Party had committed those acts, the Left would be screaming for their heads. We BOTH know that to be true..

    I am just a simple law and order kinda guy... I believe the legitimacy of a group is directly inversely proportional to the number of arrests...

    It's a simple outlook, but it works for me.. :D

    Michale..

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale-

    If you want to talk issues I'm with you.

    If you want to call people violent, racist, socialist, Leftist, Rightist, homosexual, Tea Partiest, etc, etc, etc I'm bored and have better things to do.

    And this goes for everyone and you know I've said the same to liberals on this site who have done the same.

    Can we stick to the issues w/o name calling?

    -David

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought we were...

    We were discussing the issue of the legitimacy of the Oowzer protestors, if they really do represent 99% of Americans, whether their tactics of violence, property destruction, violating people's rights and civil disobedience are necessary, etc etc...

    But hay, I'm with ya.. Pick an issue.. I got a nasty flu bug so I am taking it easy at work today... :D The worse that can happen is I'll sneeze all over you.. :D

    (huge sneeeze)Ohmygod!!!! A large transport just appeared on my scope!! It's heading south escorted by a bunch of fighters!! ohmygod!!!
    -Jon Cryer, HOT SHOTS

    :D

    Michale....

  95. [95] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nevermind, Michale ... Go back to attacking the people rather than the problem and hope you feel better!

    -David

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Go back to attacking the people rather than the problem

    Oh I see..

    It's only appropriate to attack people if they are Republicans or conservatives...

    Lefties and liberals are off limits...

    Gotcha'... ;^)

    But in this case, in this issue, the people ARE the problem.. Just ask the businesses that have to put up with the Oowzers, the cities that are spending millions in overtime and fixing the damaged caused by the Oowzers...

    There are legitimate ways to make your voice heard that won't cause these problems.

    The Tea Party showed us that..

    So, why don't the Oowzers avail themselves of THAT philosophy, of THOSE tactics??

    Answer: Because they seek confrontation and change thru violence..

    and hope you feel better!

    Thanx.. Me too... :D

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am just a simple law and order kinda guy... I believe the legitimacy of a group is directly inversely proportional to the number of arrests...

    It's a simple outlook, but it works for me.. :D

    Does that include the civil rights movement and Women's Suffrage?

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does that include the civil rights movement and Women's Suffrage?

    Well, considering you had to go back, what 60+ years (well outside of my lifetime in any case) to find a conflicting example, I think I am on safe ground..

    However, to answer your question, no. I don't think my philosophy would be applicable in those bygone years...

    But it works for me in the here and now, sooo...... :D

    Michale....

  99. [99] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am just a simple law and order kinda guy... I believe the legitimacy of a group is directly inversely proportional to the number of arrests...

    but that's just it, there have been very few arrests, considering how many people there are, how long they've been there and how strongly the emotions run. most of the 700 or so from the brooklyn bridge are ROR, and otherwise there has been precious little actual conflict to talk about. even most of the conflict that is talked about has been pretty darn mild, and what little is left was generally either false or instigated by someone other than the protesters themselves. at least in new york, the only things people actually got arrested for doing at the protest was gumming up traffic someplace they weren't permitted. that really is just stupid kid stuff, not violent, dangerous or destructive. there is no way on earth that is even in the same galaxy as a "majority" being violent, destructive or in any other way harmful to the functioning of law and order in the city. wherever your web hits are coming from, you must not be reading most of them. also, gumming up the courts is not a legal strategy, it's just a natural consequence of what happened. according to the national lawyers guild:

    "Upcoming court appearances for those arrested in connection with the demonstration already stretch into early January and could drag on longer, Stolar said, because many protesters facing charges won't accept anything less than a dismissal because they believe they've done nothing wrong."

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYPoet,

    So, what you are saying is that I am taking the actions of a few radical malcontents and trying to paint the whole Oowzer with those actions.

    Isn't that what the entire Left (including some here at CW.COM) tried to do with the Tea Party?? Took some alleged racist statements from radical malcontents and tried to paint the entire Tea Party as racist??

    Why is it OK for the Left to do it but it's not ok for me to do it??

    gumming up the courts is not a legal strategy,

    The hell it ain't...

    Dismiss all charges or we will clog up courts, lawyers for Occupy Wall Street protesters say
    Lawyers representing about 800 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in the past month demand that prosecutors drop the charges.

    If not, they say they won't deal and will insist on going to trial - putting pressure on the already overloaded Manhattan criminal courts
    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/17/2011-10-17_we_will_clog_the_courts_dismiss_charges_or_else_lawyers_say.html

    Dismiss the charges or else...

    Sounds like a legal strategy to me...

    As far as the "99 percent" moniker goes..

    Saying that the Oozers speak for 99% of Americans is like saying I speak for 99% of Weigantians, simply because I have the most posts of anyone else..

    The Oozers are loud and obnoxious (like me :D) but they don't speak for 99% of Americans. And the definitely don't speak for 99% of Independents and NPAs who will decide the 2012 elections..

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2011/10/19/cavuto-occupiers-tea-partiers-are-both-angry?page=1

    Very interesting take on things...

    I think most everyone here would agree with it...

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Isn't that what the entire Left (including some here at CW.COM) tried to do with the Tea Party?? Took some alleged racist statements from radical malcontents and tried to paint the entire Tea Party as racist??

    yes, some did. those who did were incorrect. personally, i just couldn't stop laughing at the unintentional double entendre of people who said wanted to "teabag" the folks in washington. likewise, i didn't say it wasn't OK for you to suggest what you did, just that there's an incredibly high likelihood you're mistaken.

    The Oozers are loud and obnoxious (like me :D) but they don't speak for 99% of Americans. And the definitely don't speak for 99% of Independents and NPAs who will decide the 2012 elections..

    nonetheless, we are part of the 99% of americans who our government does not adequately listen to or protect the interests of (including most of the tea party folks). i think that was the point.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    nonetheless, we are part of the 99% of americans who our government does not adequately listen to or protect the interests of (including most of the tea party folks). i think that was the point.

    Interesting perspective that I hadn't considered..

    As long as we are clear that those Oowzers don't speak for that 99%, I can accept your distinction..

    Here's another prediction I can make.

    Once we start seeing the news coverage of the Oowzer protests wane, we'll start to see more and more violent acts committed by more and more Oowzers to extend their 15 mins...

    Michale......

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Strange..

    Reuters is reporting that Qadaffi has been captured.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/al-arabiya-libyan-tv-reports-gadhafi-arrested/1

    But nothing in the MSM about it...

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You're posting "research" about the Wall Street protesters conducted by the Wall Street Journal?

    For the record, the gentleman who did the above polling is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY pollster... :D

    And you also stated that, without knowing the questions, the results are meaningless. A position that is curious, considering acceptance of other polls without knowing the questions..

    Regardless.... I'se aim to please... :D

    http://www.douglasschoen.com/pdf/Occupy_Wall_Street_Poll_Douglas_Schoen.pdf

    Michale.....

  106. [106] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    As long as we are clear that those Oowzers don't speak for that 99%

    how could they speak for anyone? as a coherent group, they don't seem to have said anything. the only clear position the group seems to have is being upset that wall street money has their voice heard in politics and the media, and most of the rest of us don't, no matter which way we vote.

    not having any particular unified position on anything else is both their problem and their strength. naturally, untapped power like this tends to attract the sort of people who seek power. lots of groups are trying to lend support in order to co-opt the movement's energy to their own purposes, not the least of which are the democratic party and the president.

    the 1% whose monopoly on power would actually be threatened are using that power to distort the central message of OWS and spin it as a creation of the people who seek to corrupt it, since that's what they themselves attempted (with limited success) in the creation of the tea party.

    however, the group's only visible unified message is unsurprisingly the one that's being talked about the least, and one that at least in theory the tea party ought to agree with. because of the corrosive effect of money on politics and the media, 99% of us don't get our voices and opinions heard, at least not in the sense of being able to get politicians to work in our interest.

    forgive my speaking in the extreme abstract, but one of the major problems in our society is that money has become our religion. deeply ingrained in all of us who grew up with american values is the idea that money is good and vice-versa, but somehow we don't recognize the difference between practicing capitalism and worshiping it. capitalism works pretty darn well as an economic system but pretty darn poorly as a national religion. many pundits have wondered, why do the 99%-ers protest at wall street and not the capitol building? perhaps it's because on some instinctive level they recognize that political power is not at the root of our problem. they're not protesting against the state; they're protesting against its established church.

  107. [107] 
    akadjian wrote:

    For the record, the gentleman who did the above polling is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY pollster.

    The fact that he's a Democrat only supports the idea that both Democrats & Republicans are protecting the establishment and the 1%.

    For the record, the gentleman who did the polling works for Fox News.

    :)

    -David

    "Smithers ... release the hounds." - Mr. Burns

  108. [108] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Also from the official NY General Assembly page of OWS:

    "This movement is comprised of thousands of people who have committed themselves to nonviolence. The one thing the powers that be understand and employ incredibly effectively around the world is the power of violence. We aim to offer a different model: a model of nonviolent direct democracy."

    http://www.nycga.net/resources/faq/

    -David

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    For the record, the gentleman who did the polling works for Fox News.

    OK, so if we're eliminating anyone that works for FNC, then we would have to eliminate anyone that works for all the OTHER media outlets...

    "What's good for the goose is nobody's business but the gander's!"
    -Mr Furley, THREES COMPANY

    :D

    "This movement is comprised of thousands of people who have committed themselves to nonviolence. The one thing the powers that be understand and employ incredibly effectively around the world is the power of violence. We aim to offer a different model: a model of nonviolent direct democracy."

    Many of the most infamous terrorists and revolutionaries in the world ALSO said they were committed to non-violence.

    It's easy to make the claim.. But let's ask the dozen or so cops that have been injured in all the Occupy protests around the country if the protesters are "committed to non violence"...

    And what happens when the media starts ignoring the Oowzers, as it appears to be doing now??

    Do you think the protesters are going to just go quietly into the night?? Of course not. They are going to ratchet up the confrontations and the violence to keep the media interested..

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.