Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

Do you support the global "Occupy" protests?


  • Total voters
    234

Brick Top

New Member
Your abseloutly right, the question is tear it down now or tear it down later? Either way it sucks, but this is the reality of our situation. The longer we wait the harder it will be. The longer we wait the more blood will be spilt.

Do wprint more money, inflate the currency, rape a little more of the lower and middle class just to kick the can down the road a few more years? Just to postpone the inevitable a little longer?

I dont think people are grasping the gravity of the situation here.... We've been duped, trapped in a scam that has been sprung by the same individuals for centuries. We are their surfs and they will decide what to do. They are fucking obbsessed with over-population. From Rockefeller to Rothschild all you hear is about the need to de-populate, re-populate, controled populate etc etc.

Follow the money. Educate yourself on the history of the world monetary system and the attorcities that brought us to where we are today. This trap has been sprung befor, on other un-suspecting populations of un-informed, apathetic societies. Remeber; Revolution - Apathy - Enslavement is the 3 step cycle of the vast majority of civilizations throughout history.

We are deeply entrenched in Apathy and many would say we have already transitioned to enslavment.

But what are the answers, what are the solutions, what are the actual steps that would work? Just saying there are problems that need to be addressed and should they be addressed now or later is all that the Occupy Wall Street people do. They bitch about the mistakes of the past, but they offer no clear solutions to achieve the future they desire.

To me this illustrates the Occupy Wall Street people's way of telling what the future must be.









They know how things are, they know what they want them to be. But they are relying on some vague inexplicable miracle to somehow occur for their final destination to be reached. Their demands are not finalized, they are only proposed demands. Their plans for how their hoped for achieved goals are nonexistent. But still they demand those things, even though they do not have a clue how they can be achieved or if they can even be achieved.



I just have to think this is one of the Occupy Wall Street people when they were going to school or college.









 

Brick Top

New Member
taxation was mentioned but you've still failed to refute my main point from before.
You refuse to accept proven facts, that every single time taxation rates have been lowered the federally collected tax revenues increase and the economy grows and that taxing the wealthy at high rates causes federally collected tax revenues to decrease and the economic growth slows down. As long as you refuse those proven facts, and others that go with them, it is pointless for me to say anything more to you on the subject.
 

Tales

Active Member
They know how things are, they know what they want them to be. But they are relying on some vague inexplicable miracle to somehow occur for their final destination to be reached. Their demands are not finalized, they are only proposed demands. Their plans for how their hoped for achieved goals are nonexistent. But still they demand those things, even though they do not have a clue how they can be achieved or if they can even be achieved.
[/CENTER]
I dont disagree one bit with what you say here. Although I personally am not the most informed on what the latest demands of the movement are, I am simply happy to see people standing up and saying, "WTF, over?".

To me it is refreshing that the people are standing up and showing some motivation to activate.

I was not tuned into the Tea Party movement, and so maybe I missed out on the other movement when people took to the streets and protested.

Far from a socialist/whatever, I know I support the Tea Party's stand on Second Amendment Rights. I support the preservation of our rights and liberties that were afforded to us by men who had genuine foresight and a new nation's best interest's at heart. Those rights along with many other aspects of our lives are being eroded and it is time that the people took back the power from the special interests that are in control now.

How its gonna go down, that is for smarter people than me to organize. But something needs to change here in the States, better or worse, something definitely needs to change.

I think the fragmented approach is what many people in the movement want. They don't want to make it a single issue debate, but rather a general movement against the current state of affairs. Whether or not this approach is going to achieve any tangible results is a whole different topic.

I wanna know, do you support the global movement that has become the "Occupy" movement? (not you of course BT, I already know your POV)
 

mame

Well-Known Member
You refuse to accept proven facts, that every single time taxation rates have been lowered the federally collected tax revenues increase and the economy grows and that taxing the wealthy at high rates causes federally collected tax revenues to decrease and the economic growth slows down. As long as you refuse those proven facts, and others that go with them, it is pointless for me to say anything more to you on the subject.
You didn't prove that at all. Listen, tax revenues generally increase every single year naturally; The point is that both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts failed to change the trend in that growth for the better. The log graph I posted illistrates that nicely, but you've dismissed that as propaganda so whatever.

Show me this magical increase... Seems to me the historical trend as far as federal tax receipts is a constant and slow uptick with neither the Reagan or Bush tax cuts amounting to any change in trend(except for the two massive drops towards the end, the first being the effect of the Bush tax cuts and the second being the 08 financial crisis).


edit: also, there is a drop right when Reagan cut taxes too and still no change in the trend.

edit edit: You can also see the effects on revenue of the tech and housing bubbles in this graph.
 

Brick Top

New Member
You didn't prove that at all.
You are right, I did not prove anything. But history has proven that without any question what I stated is true, so I, myself, do not need to attempt to prove that which has already been proven.

See, you just gave a perfect example of why it is pointless to attempt to discuss taxation with you. You abjectly refuse to accept reality when it runs contrary to your chosen beliefs. It is like having an argument with a child who in response to every factual thing you say they just say, 'is not.'
 

Tales

Active Member
See, you just gave a perfect example of why it is pointless to attempt to discuss taxation with you. You abjectly refuse to accept reality when it runs contrary to your chosen beliefs. It is like having an argument with a child who in response to every factual thing you say they just say, 'is not.'
Does it get hot in that glass house you live in?

Tales says "dont hit me Daddy, I told you I was sorry"
 

mame

Well-Known Member
You are right, I did not prove anything. But history has proven that without any question what I stated is true, so I, myself, do not need to attempt to prove that which has already been proven.

See, you just gave a perfect example of why it is pointless to attempt to discuss taxation with you. You abjectly refuse to accept reality when it runs contrary to your chosen beliefs. It is like having an argument with a child who in response to every factual thing you say they just say, 'is not.'
It's funny because you haven't presented any evidence to actually support your argument; Reducing taxes DOES NOT increase revenue, you have failed to prove CAUSATION and are relying on CORRELATION like an amateur. It almost looks like you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Tales

Active Member
Anyone else see the relation here? They both certainly share some similarities in their opinion.

And although the images are probably not them (def not BT) you both certainly share fucked up self images of yourselves.

Chemist310.jpgBT.jpg
 

Brick Top

New Member
Anyone else see the relation here? They both certainly share some similarities in their opinion.

And although the images are probably not them (def not BT) you both certainly share fucked up self images of yourselves.

View attachment 1848847View attachment 1848848
In my case the picture I use is Alan Ford, the actor who played Brick Top in the movie "Snatch." It seemed most fitting since I do use the name. It is more fitting than just using some random picture or image anyway.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
I looked back at your graphs, and it only reconfirmed my assertion that they didn't prove anything... I couldn't get it to copy over for some reason (kept coming up as a blank white square) but the revenue projections vs actual graph? What are you trying to prove? that a housing bubble increases federal tax revenue? Because that's all that shows.
 

Brick Top

New Member
It's funny because you haven't presented any evidence to actually support your argument;
I posted exactly what happened when tax rates were reduced in the past. If you prefer to ignore accurate history so you can continue to spout your nonsense, so be it. But there is no reason for you to lie and claim I did not provide any proof when I indeed did provide proof of what has happened each time tax rates were lowered, that the result was an increase in collected tax revenues and economic growth.




Message number 3 of this thread:


<b><b>
In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history. Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called &#8220;supply side economics,&#8221; the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment. High income tax rates, Mellon argued, &#8220;inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people&#8221; (page 128).
Mellon wrote, &#8220;It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.&#8221; And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: &#8220;If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.&#8221;
And what happened?
&#8220;As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent. These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development &#8211; from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies. Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains. President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation &#8211; the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.
Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue. In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million. In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark. Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy&#8221; (page 129-130).


Kennedy said:
&#8220;It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now &#8230; Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president&#8217;s news conference
&#8220;Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased &#8211; not a reduced &#8211; flow of revenues to the federal government.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
&#8220;In today&#8217;s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit &#8211; why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: &#8220;The Economic Report Of The President&#8221;
&#8220;It is no contradiction &#8211; the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today&#8217;s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: &#8220;The Economic Report Of The President&#8221;
&#8220;Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort &#8211; thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
&#8220;A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.
So let&#8217;s move on to Ronald Reagan. Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Did Reagan&#8217;s tax cuts decrease federal revenues? Hardly:
We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts. And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.
So Reagan&#8217;s tax cuts increased revenue. But who paid the increased tax revenue? The poor? Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall. But that was exactly wrong. In reality:
&#8220;The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.&#8221;
So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted &#8211; with only minor hiccups &#8211; for nearly three decades. Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a &#8220;malaise,&#8221; suffering due to a &#8220;crisis of confidence.&#8221; Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter&#8217;s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, &#8220;It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.&#8221;
Let&#8217;s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts. And let me quote none other than the New York Times:
Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 12 &#8211; For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.
Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.
Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be &#8220;significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.&#8221;

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.
[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]
Note the newspaper&#8217;s use of liberals favorite adjective: &#8220;unexpected.&#8221; They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they&#8217;re given the chance. They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they&#8217;re tried.
For the record, President George Bush&#8217;s 2003 tax cuts:
raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.
These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.
Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.
Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy. Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means. Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year. And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt. Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage? But that&#8217;s literally the Democrats&#8217; argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).
As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized. We don&#8217;t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem. The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.
Update September 12: Did somebody say something about &#8220;jobs&#8221;? Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the &#8220;rich&#8221; aren&#8217;t continued. As found in the Wall Street Journal, &#8220;According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.&#8221; Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership. And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation&#8217;s total workforce. &#8220;Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.&#8221; So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don&#8217;t pile more punishing taxes on those &#8220;rich&#8221; people. Especially during a recession [End update].
We&#8217;re not arguing theories here; we&#8217;re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon&#8217;s thesis, and Warren Harding&#8217;s and Calvin Coolidge&#8217;s, John F. Kennedy&#8217;s, Ronald Reagan&#8217;s, and George W. Bush&#8217;s, economic policies.
Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.
The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow &#8220;beholden to the rich&#8221; for doing so is just a lie. And a Marxist-based lie at that.
[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:
Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).
1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).
So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.
For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).
The middle class&#8217; tax burden went DOWN by 9%. They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.
For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).
So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS. When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money. They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed. When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don&#8217;t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more &#8211; and improve the economy by doing so &#8211; by investing. If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.</b></b>
 

mame

Well-Known Member
again, you keep presenting correlations as facts without causation. None of what you have posted says "when X happened, the result was Y. I know that X caused the Result Y because...". So taxes go down, revenue goes up... What are the chances there was an economic bubble, which straight tax cuts wouldn't create(industry specific tax cuts could, however)? The revenue spike in the second half of the 2000's can easily be attributed to the housing bubble - not the Bush tax cuts, for example. You have not proven it was the tax cuts that caused the revenue increase, you've only shown that there was a revenue increase(and remember, that increase came off of a huge drop off in revenue...).
 

WillyBagseed

Active Member
Simple version

Kennedy lowered tax rates but closed loopholes equaling increased tax revenue.

Reagan
In terms of the most basic measure of economic growth - increase in gross domestic product (GDP) - the vaunted "Reagan boom" was an unremarkable period of time. If we look at Reagan's eight years, and compare them with Clinton's and JFK/LBJ's, Reagan comes in dead last, with 31.7 per cent compared with Clinton's 33.1 per cent and JFK/LBJ's 47.1 per cent. Only Nixon/Ford's eight years make Reagan look good, with a mere 26.2 per cent growth

If we examine incomes, we discover that Reagan's eight years marked a real take-off for inequality, while average incomes stagnated. The income growth of the top once per cent was ten times that of everyone else during his term: 61.5 per cent versus 6.15 per cent. Under JFK/LBJ, the bottom 99 per cent actually did better: gaining 30.9 per cent compared with 26.9 per cent for the top once per cent. And while inequality continued to rise under Clinton, the bottom 99 per cent did more than twice as well as they did under Reagan, gaining 16.7 per cent compared with 56.6 per cent for the wealthiest one per cent

Under Ronald Reagan, the US went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years - and we have remained the largest debtor nation ever since. In 1981, Reagan's first year in office, the US was a net creditor to the tune of $140.9bn. By 1984, that had shrunk to just $3.3bn - and the next year, the US shifted from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation for the first time in almost 70 years. By 1987, the US was a net debtor by $378.3bn - the largest debtor nation in the world. The figure rose to $532.5bn by the end of 1988, when Reagan left office.

Reagan followed up his 1981 tax cuts with increases in 1982 and 1983 (mostly on the middle class). And for good reason: The unemployment rate - already high when Reagan took office - continued to skyrocket after his tax cuts were passed - peaking at 11.2 per cent in 1983, when the jobless rate finally started to come down. The exact mixture of cause and effect over such an extended period may be subject to debate. But one thing is certain: Reagan's 1981 tax cuts did not magically result in job creation in anything like the way that conservatives nowadays mindlessly claim.

Bush Sr.
More voodoo economics

Clinton
Glass-Steagall killed off, Nafta and the telecom bill, does any more need to be said

Bush Jr
More voodoo economics, eight years and counting of tax cuts to the rich... where are these jobs you said would be created if this occurred? The present meltdown
 

Brick Top

New Member
again, you keep presenting correlations as facts without causation.
OK, you will not accept what has happened each time taxes have been lowered as proof, and you refuse to accept that a Joint Economic Committee concluded that when you lower tax rates the result is increased collected tax revenues. But did you research the exact same thing that the joint economic committee researched and come up with a different conclusion? Are you saying the joint economic committee was inaccurate in their conclusion? If so, do you hold equal or better qualifications to the members of the joint economic committee that makes you as or better qualified to formulate a conclusion? Are you saying that you are a greater authority on the results of taxation than the joint economic committee was? If so, why?

Since you demand proof, even though you will not accept it when it is provided, where is your proof? What can you provide that proves your position other than just saying, does not?
 

WillyBagseed

Active Member
Obama isn't done yet, might be even worse than it is or not...


Common sense is a better qualification than most committees "qualifications"
 
Top