Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Higher Taxation or Slash Government Spending?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 6:53 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I see OWS protesters saying that the "rich" have too much money. I see them demand the government "take" the money from them and redistribute the money to those "who need it". Why are OWS for taking from private peope and corporations only to give it to the government? Why is the money wrong to be in the hands of private companies and people, yet perfectly okay in the hands of government? Private individuals and corporations cannot take money from you, but the government can.

Why not demand the government lower spending? Why not demand government slash spending? Why is OWS not Occupy Government Buildings? Why does OWS not understand it was not Wall Street that flamed the economy, but government?

153 Comments

153 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We need to do both.

We need to close the loopholes that people use to pay hardly any taxes. It happens on the federal, state, and local levels. For example some folks have huge multi-million dollar estates in NJ. They sell a few loads of firewood so they can call it a farm. This cuts their property taxes by 90%.

On the other side, we could start by ending the practice of taking money from middle class Americans and spending it on bail outs, blowing up people in other countries, and funding regimes overseas.

We need to address Social Security and Medicare costs as well since they make up 42% of the budget.

[-] 1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

Google also exploits taxation by funneling their accounts off shore, In fact Google pays almost next to nothing in the US.

The reason SS and medicare budgets are so high is because of out of control charges against medicare among the medical sector. No one in the government is investigating where all this money is being charged too, doctors are some of the most crooked people on this earth, sometimes charging twice on one client medical visit.

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

"Why are OWS for taking from private peope [SIC] and corporations only to give it to the government?"

Governments are people, my friend! Of course they are. Everything governments tax ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The "government" doesn't know how to do "shit" for if they did, the government wouldn't be into debt for 15 trillion - "regardless of the circumstances".

How hard is that to "understand".

[-] 4 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

get educated about what the debt is actually paying for - wall street fuckups, tax cuts for the top 1%, and wars. Thats the problem with corporations owning D.C, we end up paying for their mistakes.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well let me say this - the so called "wall street fuckups" paid back what they borrowed from the government - with interest.

How many people who got loans to buy a house will "pay back what they borrowed from the government"?

There is no doubt that Washington DC needs to be changed, but so does the attitude of the people of this country.

The vast majority of people (X and X generation) place no value on what they own - they live in a disposable society and as such when they lose something it's not a big deal to them because they placed no value on owning it in the first place. It was just "instant gratification" to satisfy their wants.

[-] 3 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

How many banksters who made fraudulent mortgages, robosigned foreclosures, and intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay in order to scam hedge funds with derivatives that they bet against went to jail? How many of them returned the profits they made through fraud to the people whos houses they foreclosed on?

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hey, when a peson signs a contract they are not being "forced" to sign it. If they are that stupid then they get what they deserve.

You see lots of people bought houses because they wanted to "make big bucks".

When a person buys a house with a ARM, Interest only, 110% of the house value all with the intention of selling it in 3 or 4 years to make a killing in the market you now know why there are so many foreclosures.

There are a vast amount of peole out there who did purchase homes and are still making payments on them. Why, because they made "responsible financial decisions".

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

Keep blaming the victim - in the real world, most of these mortgages were fraudulent at worst and intentionally deceptive at best.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hey, people need to be held responsible for their actions. By doing this it teaches "responsibility" instead of "irresponsibility".

The people in this country whom are paying their mortgage bills on time are not getting anything for their efforts. On the othe hand people who haven't paid their mortgage bills on time are given a "loan modification".

Do you call that "being fair" to people who are responsible"?

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

"people need to be held responsible" unless they are Wall Street criminals, in which case keep blaming the victim to excuse Wall Street perps from their crimes.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I don't excuse "wall street perps from their crimes". I will say this about that.

If crimes were committed why hasn't the government stepped in to prosecute these individuals?

Don't say it's because they are "sleeping in bed with Washington DC" because that's not true.

I think it's because the govenment allowed these companies to be "inovative" on how loans were given and these companies well aware of the fact that it would be covered by the government.

And the government never stepped in to stop it because they wanted "everyone to own a home regardless if they could afford it or not".

They knew there would be those who would foreclose on their loans but they didn't care.

So now Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have billions in "bad debt" that they had to buh back and the taxpayer is on the hook for it.

It should be the execs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who should be hung by their "nuts" for doing this along with anyone else who agreed to this including Barney Frank.

So, don't say that the Wall Street perps committed crimes. They did what did within the "letter of the law".

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

You are dead wrong and you are a dedicated apologist for corporate interests. You stick to your "blame the government" ron paul mole talking point. But the fact is, wall street wasn't prosecuted because corporate influence in Washington has neutered every regulatory agency, and any politician who speaks out against it will face unlimited corporate campaign contributions towards his opponents in the next election.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

As far as your bullshit "within the letter of the law" apologetics, please acquaint yourself with the facts

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

SteveKJR, I generally agree with your perspective, however...

I didn't understand why people had taken on these loans so I went on a mission to talk to some of them here. What I found was that most of them knew nothing about personal finance and weren't even qualified to evaluate the simple terms of the Federal Truth In Lending form they signed. Many said, "If figured the bank wouldn't lend to me if I couldn't afford it because they'd lose their money." I had to explain that their view may have been accurate a long time ago, but banks now sell-off the loans they originate, and have no vested interest in the loan.

If you look at my comment at http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-are-your-big-five-issues-things-you-would-cha/#comment-574317 , you'll see I advocate adding a year to High School which would specifically include instruction in personal finance.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

When the government takes money, it disappears from the people.

[-] 3 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

But Governments are people. Where do you think that money goes? It goes to other people. Right now it goes to "corporate people" but I believe if we "corporate people" didn't run the political system, it would go to the "American people."

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

No, governments are not people. They are a power structure that takes money from those who earn it and ingest it. Money the government takes from the people does not go back to the people.

[-] 2 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

a government is just a group of people with the power to collect taxes from other people and spend them for the general welfare. People collect taxes and use the taxes to promote the general welfare of other people.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Because half are going to revote for Obama...

[-] 2 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

The problem isn't big government, it is corruption and inefficiency in government. The more government can do to help the people, the better.

10% of the population owns more than 90% of the wealth. That is the same as saying 1 person has 9 apples and 9 people get one-ninth of one apple. If those with 9 apples were to get by with only 8, the standard of living would DOUBLE for 90% of the population.

Fair taxation would provide free education and health care, and more. Only government can provide such services at reasonable costs.

If you think only government can take money from you in an unfair way, try making minimum wage and going in for a root canal and crown. The dentist will charge you 125 times what you make in one hour for one hour of his time. Such are the conditions a small, weak government provides for it's people.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

BOTH!!!!!

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Quit your whining and puling and go to dental school.

[-] 2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Because the government is not to blame, the rich are. I will never understand the hatred by OWS for the rich, but their love for a completely out of control government, that bucks a balanced budget amendment, and keeps driving our country further in the ditch, while putting the foot harder on the accelerator.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Well I am all with them if it involves kicking out the dimocrats and repubicans.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the repeliKans are history - it's just a matter of time. All of their lies are going to catch up with them - sudden like.

After that, it should be easy to spot the liars and cheats that remain.

[-] 1 points by Wallgreed (-26) 2 years ago

Just like you libtards said last year, that Rep are history. After this election you clowns will be serving us coffee

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah-ya. We'll see how this election turns out. You can thank the tea party for the last election - this one may be a bit different.

the circumstances certainly are different.

and in any case - as soon as Glacier National Park is denuded of glacial ice, [if not before]

  • the repeliKan party is DONE

here is something to contemplate:

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] 1 points by Wallgreed (-26) 2 years ago

cut and paste fool

[+] -5 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's right - I wrote it, I saved it, I copied it, I pasted it.

I'll probably do it again, too.

any second

drives ya nuts, don't it.

[-] 1 points by Wallgreed (-26) 2 years ago

So you think that getting rid of the Rep is going to cure us??? you are wrong. What is coming our way cannot be stopped and before it is all said and done, the so called 1% are also going to be poor like everyone else

[+] -5 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's probably what Wall Street has been whispering in the President's ear for a while now - just to make sure they keep their guys in the cabinet.

fukem.

they tank our economy further,

they can reap what they sow.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

All they need to do to "slash gov spending" is quit their ridiculous budgeting they are using from federal, state, down to local levels.... where every branch spends the money or they lose the budget for next year, I mean who thought this system up a kindergardner? How about develop a system where they spend only what they need, and are rewarded for not spending their budget by getting priority dibs on the money the next year. Sheesh sometimes I think I live on planet of the apes! LOL

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

haven't we already been over this

corps profit off or labor and rent

that is the corp Tax on the people without representation

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yes, and the OWS solution is to tax business owners and corporations more so more taxation can be passed on to the people.

Circular logic.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that would be a solution if we are going to continue to play they dollar game

and maintain current private ownership system in which ownership of property still belongs to an elite

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I own property (as do you), and I am not what you would consider "the elite".

What is your plan?

What would you suggest?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

try harder

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Try harder?...

Not sure what you mean.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Trillion$ War on Drugs

The War on Drugs consumes more than $42 billion federally and more than $62 billion by the combined states EACH YEAR. That is well over $1 trillion in government spending in ten years.

At the same time the prohibition against regulated intoxicant drug sales creates a black market that provides gangster organizations with as much as $141 billion each year in tax free income in America alone. Taxed at the same rate as alcohol that business could provide government with nearly $50 billion a year in new revenue.

Combined cost savings and revenue increases amounting to $1.5 trillion in ten years.

Authoritarian anti democracy Jim Crow drug warriors in the Democratic and republican parties just say no.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 2 years ago

You must only read your own threads.

You've missed a whole lot of details that belie every Question you've asked.

The more pertinent question is, why don't you, 'toonces'-------------support----------

OccupyWallStreet?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Because they seem to want something they are not willing to work to get. They seem to want the government to take from those who they deem unworthy of keeping property and redistributing it to those they deem worthy of receiving it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 2 years ago

What seems to be. "what they want" , to you.

Isn't what is.

That's what is called a "cognitive disconnect".

Please provide a link, that demonstrates that this is indeed, included in any list of demands.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/who-will-be-the-first-group-of-people-that-ows-rounds-up/question-2274419/?link=ibaf&imgurl=http://granitegrok.com/pix2/OWSNH-KillAndEatTheRich.png&q=OWS eat+the+rich"><img src="http://granitegrok.com/pix2/OWSNH-KillAndEatTheRich.png"><br>OWS eat+the+rich pics on Sodahead</a>

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/17/dever-occupiers-bring-back-the-guillotine/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/akinloch/6528489741/

Just a few...

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 2 years ago

Sodahead, weaselzippers and flickr are in no way affiliated with OWS.

The disconnect, continues.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The pictures are of the OWS mob.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yawn ....

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

Why not demand the government lower spending?

Because it's not that easy. Sure government spends a lot but a lot of that money is used to help ease living conditions.

Why not demand government slash spending? Why is OWS not Occupy Government Buildings? Why does OWS not understand it was not Wall Street that flamed the economy, but government?

Because the government's boss is Wall Street. We are cutting the middle man and we are talking to the boss face to face.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

No, governments boss is the fed.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

you dont understand how the system works

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Nor do you.

[-] 2 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

Political campaigns cost money. Corporations pay that money and get politicians elected. In return politicians favor corporation in any deal they can. This is how politics work. Corporations are the bosses of the politicians in this country.

[-] 1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The fed is the biggest corp and it stands outside the jurisdiction of governmental regulation.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Both.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

Here's an example of what rich people and their friends in government do. goo.gl/ZZImV Who cares about their money ? They dont want to pay taxes and think they shouldnt and they want the government to do things like free trade which shipped many millions of jobs out of this country with no chance of them coming back the way they keep it. They want every one else to pay for the wars, infrastructure, national security, families of falling soldiers, the list goes on then say its because of handouts they dont. Its not all rich people but there are alot. By the way in case you havent noticed, this movement does protest the government as well.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Like General Electric?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

private corporations have more control over our lives than the elected government

the tell us , when, how and what our jobs will be

they determine how much we are paid

Healthcare has be slashed from many corps that once provide it

how much vacation time we get

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Private companies cannot compel you to give them money. The government can.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not if one has no money to start

what of rent?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

A choice. You can rent from someone else.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

true, but pay for space i must

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

true but pay for space i must

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yes, as must I and everyone else.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

indeed not

there are land owners that get paid

and loaners that accrue interest

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Even land owners must pay their "rent", or have you forgotten the alligator that they are compelled to pay at the point of a gun?.. You know them as the government.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ah

be they do make more from rent than they pay

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, the solution would be for you to buy properties that you can then rent to others.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

rolls eyes

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are more restricted by your own view of yourself than you are by the actions of others. If you see yourself as unable to obtain property, you will be unable to obtain property. You are what you eat.

Dream and work towards a goal and you will obtain it. Focus and achieve.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

rolls eyes

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Then you are getting what you deserve.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Higher giving in the interest of a Fair Nation.

It's about values. See http://occupywallst.org/forum/on-fairness/

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I am an "OWS protester"
I don't say the rich ave too much money - I don't say the sky is blue
any statistic you show prove the reality
Can you show us any statistic that COMPARES wealth from today vs 30 years ago?
Can you show us any statistic that COMPARES tax payments from today vs 30 years ago?
Do you dare?
Or are you afraid of the truth?

drop the bush tax cuts on over $250,000 AMT on all corporate profits cut military spending 10%/year for five years

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Sure, in 1980 the nation was faced with high unemployment, high inflation and low growth. The stagnant growth of the 70's was so bad that it coined a new term - the misery index. By focusing on sound money policy, lower regulations and reducing the top marginal tax rate, the economy turned around and gave us 30 years of very strong growth and low unemployment.

Tax rates are the least effective tool in the belt. The most important is sound monetary policy

Anytime there is economic growth you will get discrepancies, where the high end does better than the low end. That doesn't mean that the median income hasn't gone up or that the poverty rate didn't decline prior to the recession.

Tax payments for the 1% are much higher today than they were in 1980 in both absolute terms and as a % of GDP. But the effective tax rate has remained the same for the past 50 years. This is telling you that people will hide their money when the rates are too high and will not bother when rates are lower.

If you believe that the government is a better allocator of assets than the free market then we should give them 100% of our money and let them allocate it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"If you believe that the free market is a better allocator of assets than the government then we should give them 100% of our money and let them allocate it."
we tried it with wall street - worked well didn't it ?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Yes, look at all of the companies that have been started over the past 30 years, They all were funded using the free market mechanism and that is what employs people and allows them to feed their families. So you don't use google, yahoo, apple products or eat food that has been grown by Cargill or Monsanto?

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Monopolies do work to weed out the competition. If allowed they will use and eat us.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

So then what happened to Kodak? They aren't eating us, in fact from their own missteps they are filing for bankruptcy.

Explain Yahoo?

Explain what is happening to Microsoft? There shouldn't be an Apple.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

If they ever had monopolies, they would be peerless. You can't shoot the competition, at least not legally. Apple sued Microsoft for patent infringement after Gates could afford better lawyers, or Windows would have had to retool. There have been shared monopolies worked out in secret deals, to avoid real competition, to fix prices and skirt the free enterprise laws. Big business would be great if it weren't for those pesky laws against wrongful deaths.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Microsoft propped up Apple right after Steve Jobs came back, they probably would have been dead otherwise. The reason they entered a kind of partnership and agreed to give Apple money and produce a mac version of Office was not so much out of kindness, as a shrewd political move to avoid being busted into pieces through anti-trust legislation.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

This is not correct. Microsoft had been in a partnership with Apple since the very beginning and were the first third-party company to write software for Apple. The version of Microsoft Office for Mac existed before Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997.

The reason Microsoft helped Apple is not only because of the anti-trust issues. It's a little more complicated than that.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

You might be right about office, I recall something about MS agreeing to put out a new version and continue developing it for some period of time. They also made a large investment in non-voting shares at the time when Apple was on life support. I don't think Jobs would have turned it around otherwise, they hadn't even had a new operating system in years.

I'm sure its a bit more complicated, but basically Microsoft's main competition was about to hit chapter 11 and I think they knew it would not look very good so they eased off a bit.

I remember at the time Apple had a few bad product flops, and were so desperate they were trying to license their OS to Mac Clone companies... around the same time that the US and EU anti-trust Lawyers were sniffing around Microsoft's doors.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

This whole idea that Microsoft saved Apple is really a myth. The deal was only for 150 million dollars which is nothing for these sorts of companies.

Perhaps this can refresh your memory: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/7036

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I dunno man, having actually been a Mac User at the time... they looked like they were in very big trouble. I think Jobs saved saved the company, but the MS deal came at a very key time. It was a large injection of cash, guarantee that Mac users could continue to communicate with the PC world, and it helped restore investor confidence in Apple by signaling to the markets that MS was making peace. The third is especially critical, it is very expensive to raise capital when investors think MS is going to wipe you off the map.

Anyway, the original post I made had more to do with the benefit of anti-trust provisions in a capitalist system. Without that, what incentive is there to prop up the competition?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Even monopolies stumble. Just look at the NBA and their strike. They have been losing market share for many years.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

You'll need to do both...But that won't happen..Isn't it quite interesting how we are going in the same direction as Greece and Italy...Austerity, even if will be the destruction of many peoples lives and eventually the country..

Seems like a plan.

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

The destruction of Greece is a result of debt and spending. Austerity measures are the result of spending money you don't have. Blaming austerity for the death of Greece is like blaming the death of a syphilitic on penicillin that was administered too late.

But that won't stop lefties from blaming it on the cure rather than the cause will it? :)

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

In Greece many people were able to avoid paying taxes for a very long time and with the same level of spending...sound familiar...

Now who in our country insists on the lowest taxation rates in 30 years and shoveling tons of cash to the M.I.C. ...

Our Congressmen make decisions to enrich themselves, corporations and their elite buddies and whatever the poor get is STFU money.

Now who do they expect to pay? The poor and middle class..The same people who got fucked over in 2008..

Sir, I blame the "decision makers". The people in charge and the corporations that own them..

You have the same twisted mentality that blames a women for getting raped because she wore a tight skirt.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

You answered you own statement if only you would define debt.

[-] 1 points by wigger (-48) 2 years ago

Are you king of non-sequiturs as well? :)

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Austerity measures the result of spending money you don't have. Debt is the result of spending money you don't have. I didn't mean to imply they were the same only linked.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

If you took everything away from the Greek people, it still would not resolve the issue...

Austerity will not help economic growth making it even harder debt repayment..

In our country after more than ten years of tax breaks and two or three wars..Golly! We have a debt problem! Golly! More of those tax break went to who? The top 1%.

The main deal for republicans and some Democrats is to get rid of all of FDR's New Deal programs that's all..."Starve the beast".

I'm not a lefty or a righty. BTW I think labels are pretty freaking worthless at this point. ...I'm part of the indigenous population of America that's all.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Hell, it isn't only Greece that is in "financial dispair" it's all of Europe because of their "free government handouts".

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That false assertion has been completely debunked repeatedly.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So then, why are all those countries in "financial dispair"?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

First, not all of those countries are in financial despair. Only a few are. But given the interrelations of the banks (one country's debt being held by another's banks) there is real danger of contagion from one distresses country to another. France's troubles have less to do with its social services budget than with the fact that it holds so much of Greece's paper.

Another contributor to Europe's problems is that the banking system there was hurt by the near collapse of the banks here: it is a world economy now, not limited by country. WE caused much of their crisis.

Ireland had a housing bubble similar to ours. They are suffering similarly to us.

Spain's debt is in better shape than neighbors who are not in trouble, and its social programs are smaller, yet it is among the ones on the verge.

Germany, as another example, is in far less trouble than the US economically, and in far less trouble than some of its neighbors that actually have LESS expansive social spending than it has.

And the problems that happened in specific European countries, (largely caused by us, though not exclusively), were made far worse by individual countries inability to print their own money to do their own bank bailouts or create jobs. Instead, they had to rely on other country's bankers who made the situation worse by imposing austerity measures instead of stabilizing jobs or encouraging consumer spending and confidence. What began as relatively small problems became huge ones by virtue of that austerity and lack of independent currency. As a result, the Euro itself may cease to exist as a currency: no one, except perhaps Germany, wants to be a part of it any more. It infringes on sovereignty.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Because government spending is all that's keeping the poor alive. Plus, lowering it right now would push the US into another Great Depression.

Long term spending should go down. And it can once we reach full employment again.

As to the rich having too much money, one of the consequences of inordinate income disparity is higher infant mortality rates among those in the bottom quintile. It doesn't even matter if that lower quintile is not in as much poverty as another time: the very disparity itself is the correlate.

Right now, as I type, the infant mortality rate in East Harlem and other impoverished pasts of the country is HIGHER than that of Calcutta and much of the rest of the third world.

Cutting spending now would be nothing other than barbaric. Allowing the income disparity to continue or increase is hardly less so.

Not to mention the issue of political power. The greater the gaps in income, the greater the disproportionate influence the wealthy have on elected officials. Great income disparity damages democracy itself.

Of course, this last point, as well as the first one, are things you already knew, and they have been pointed out several times. So your question isn't really a question at all, but a vain attempt to start another debate on a topic that has been asked and answered time and time and time and time again. It is disingenuous on its face. It is a pathetic call for attention, also known as trolling.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So how long has the "infant mortality rates in East Harlem" been higher then that of Calcutta?

What has the black leaders done about that - nothing? Just like New Orleans prior to Katrina.

The black community is enslaved by the black leaders - they don't encourage "individual empowerment" instead they encourage "government empowerment" and as a result the poor in these communities will always be poor and needy

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Why do you assume this is a black issue. I pointed to one community only, primarily hispanic, by the way. The numbers apply equally to parts of Appalachia, Texas, California, and so on.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I don't assume it I know it. I have worked in poor black communities and there is no "outside support" from black leaders. They could care less about these people along with a lot of others.

And you are right, it is true across the country.

[-] -1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

Your first statement is not true at all, welfare is by far low on the government spending radar, it is almost impossible for anyone who does not have children to get public assistance in America, and the social programs we do have are few and next to none only going to women or women who have families which is kind of idiotic when 80% of people who have lost their jobs in this country are men.

More social programs toward men and low rent public housing that do not cater to illegal immigrates or their anchor babies need to apply.

Lessening the restriction on current programs also need to apply. Why oh why in NY would it take 40 days to get a public check from welfare is insane too me.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I would agree that there is too little spending on social programs as a whole. And I wasn't talking about welfare alone, but unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and so forth.

As to not catering to undocumented workers, I don't see that as relevant at all, but that's a different discussion. (And you might be surprised by how little they receive per capita compared to citizens - the enormity of the costs is a pure invention by the right to distract from the real problems. Race baiting is a very effective ploy to get Americans all riled up about the wrong things.)

[-] 1 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

I'm not race baiting at all. Anyone who turns a political debate by pointing to race tactics has a piss poor political stance and last time I heard Illegal immigration wasn't a ethnic race joined together at the hip.

Illegal immigration is very relevant though, specially to government spending, a billion or so was spent on hospital visits by government on undocumented civilians last year.

Obviously you've never been near a welfare office or in one for hours at a time. Undocumented civilians receive much more than you take for granted. I read a few months ago 71% of welfare spending is spent on undocumented civilians and their anchor babies in five selected states across America.

"Very effective ploy to get Americans all riled up about the wrong things"

Sounds to me like you are trying to sway the american public in the wrong direction by not stating the truth. I have no agenda here lady I'm just stating the facts.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I did't say you were race baiting, I said the Repelicans were, and that you bought it. You are not alone. Most people believe the mythology of the costs of undocumented immigrants. It was a very effective ploy, based on xenophobia in general and race in particular. Sadly we are all still prone to fall for it.

Research shows that, on average, undocumented immigrants pay $80,000 dollars more in their lifetime to the government than they get back. Most pay payroll taxes and SSRI, but collect no Social Security or other benefits when they retire. The myth that they are collectively getting more benefits at the expense of American citizens is just that: a myth.

[-] 2 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

It's not a mythology lady, anyone doing a google search can tell you that, I also have myself as an eye witness to this, since I live in the ghetto, in fact I live in a 24 story apartment complex that is so drug infested and filled with undocumented people that every month 3 or 4 tenants are thrown out their windows.

I also don't appreciate the republican nudge in your statement since I'm more far left than the average lefty, of course some would consider me the new post-economic liberal of america.

Now I'm starting to wonder if you even live in America by your "average, undocumented immigrants pay $80,000 dollars more in their lifetime to the government than they get back" statement in your comment.

Since the average 9-5 Burger King employee receives perhaps a little under $10,000 a year and the IRS actually pays non-negative dividend money back to people making under $13,000 a year. (I should know I've filed my taxes).

Not only this but illegal immigrates don't file taxes since they would have to be committing a criminal act by stealing a citizens identification, which is fraud and destroys the real citizens personal finances. If This illegal immigrate does by miracle pay taxes he must be working as an accountant or an executive manager to be able to pay back $80,000 in his life time, and personally I don't see that happening.

That research is pretty flawed, if I was the committee I would fire their asses because it doesn't add up.

Of course you could just be telling really cool stories on the internet to help sway your own agenda base politics which I think, personally, is garbage

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Except they shouldn't really be here in the first place illegally so they don't deserve social security.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's an entirely different issue. The issue was spending. Collectively they don't cost the country one thin dime, and in fact support the economy as a whole.

My facts are straight. And just because you're a lefty, as you say, doesn't mean you are immune to the constant barrage of propaganda from the right. We all are subjected to it.

Again, undocumented workers pay payroll taxes. That they invent or steal SS numbers is a different issue, but they pay nevertheless. (paying MORE on someone else's SS number doesn't destroy anyone's personal finances, since no benefits are being collected. It's all addition, no subtraction involved.) They simply can't collect. They also pay property taxes (obviously not in your building, but its far more common than you think) sales taxes, and most of the other taxes you and I pay. They just collect fewer benefits, on average, than the rest of us.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Actually they do. Taking them and giving them food and medical care and then paying to transport them back costs a bit wouldn't you say?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Doesn't nearly as much as they contribute to the tax base on the whole.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

If they are here illegally then how do they pay taxes?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They use other people's SS numbers, paying into the system without being able to get back from it. They also pay property taxes. they also pay sales taxes. They also pay taxes on utilities, gas, electricity, water, telephone, and so on.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

They can fix that by becoming legal citizens

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's almost impossible to accomplish.

It used be easier in my parent's generation, (or so it seems) but ever since Reagan and the acceptability of xenophobia he ushered in, the regulations and hurdles to citizenship have become onerous. Each new group of candidate in each new election cycle competes for finding new, more draconian ways to clamp down on these uninvited unwashed masses, and every year it seems they just make it harder and harder for simple hard working folks to attain legal status.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I have a canadian friend who just recently became a legal citizen of the U.S. He didn't seem to stressed out.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Undoubtedly he is White and has a professional background or degree.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

And employers don't deserve to pay less than minimum wage just because the person being exploited has no reasonable recourse. We don't deserve the wage suppression that comes as a result of such exploitation being an alternative for employers. I think it's a little selective to decide one party of the three involved in perpetuating it, to be the guilty party.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Why come here?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I wasn't aware that this was a pro-government spending movement. That is probably because it isn't. It's a movement addressing inequality. That inequality has it's roots in the way our economy currently works, not because the government doesn't give enough food stamp. If you think otherwise, maybe you should stop speaking and start listening.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I meant why would the illegal immigrants come here?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

If you don't understand the answer to this question already, you have wasted everyone's time by pretending to have any reasonable suggestions. It is never acceptable to debate before doing your own research.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

DIdn't you read the post about the little mexican village town? They are happy there.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Are you expecting me to actually dignify that flawed BS with debate? If these lame ass tactics are getting somewhere with others, thats fine, but don't waste my time with it. Have an actual position and information or you're just noise.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Fine its cool. My last question is why can't they fix their country instead of coming here.

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

This is not true at all, FDR began social programs for the poor and the lower working class, this revolutionized America and within a short few years we were on top of the world economy.

America is becoming a reflection of Brazil each and everyday, Brazil is a godless shit hole that has no middle class, the few rich who are mainly foreigners control most of the country while the rest are on the streets begging for loose change to tourist.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is not true at all

Really? so you're saying the government should give out more food stamps and that will fix the problem? or are you saying that the current structure of our economy is not to blame? What part are you disagreeing with and did you even read it?

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

What I'm saying is that social programs should help the poor and the middle class who have lost their jobs due to the current economy or need a helping hand, not chronic users of the system who do drugs and have multiple children and do nothing with their lives but party.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The guilt is the exploiter's, not the exploited.

What's more, there is no real wage suppression. The jobs being taken are ones shown to be those that, even during recessions, citizens don't take. They are having a real problem with that now in Alabama.

Regardless, this whole debate started by my saying cutting government spending would hurt the poor. and would also hurt the economy. Do you really disagree with that?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Actually his parents are Indian.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

But he is not Mexican or Guatemalan, or Ecuadorian.

Does he have a college degree? Or is he an undereducated laborer, just seeking blue collar work in a factory, a kitchen or a field to feed his kids?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

High school junior. As I remember it, all he had to do was swear fealty to the United States.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I don't believe it for a second. In the best of circumstances gaining citizenship takes a minimum of 2 years. and is usually closer to 5.

There are tests to take, papers to file, fees to pay. He had to have an "in" that was already in place.

Most importantly, there are QUOTAS you have fit into. If you are not a part of an acceptable demographic, you need not apply.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Actually you're right I'm sorry I'm not 100% on the details but that is the last thing he had to do. I think its taken him closer to 2 1/2.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to your post below.

If the government made it easy for them to get in legally, they could not be exploited for profit. As it is, the government, and the businesses that bribe it, are making a hefty profit under the current system. Why would they want to change that? Legal immigrants can collect benefits without hesitation. Undocumented ones can't so casually take advantage of those expensive benefits.

There is also the issue of quotas. Don't believe for a second that American policy is not racist, or that politicians don't pander to the population's racism when making policy.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

I don't and I agree with you. However, LIke I said I have no problem with them coming into this country legally I just don't like the illegals.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And how long would it have taken him if was a dirt poor Mexican? The answer is it could never happen.

There are three issues here. One is that undocumented workers are broadly accused of costing the country money. They don't. On average they pay far more into the system than they get out of it.

Second, the enmity towards them is not simply xenophobic, but generally racist. Before you get your panties in a bunch, I am not accusing you of that. But the legs the mythology has, the passions surrounding the issue are obviously, painfully, race based. Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, make up HALF the percentage of the population than they did a century ago. ( In 1900 it was 20%, today it is under 10%). The uproar now has to do with the fact that they are brown, rather than European.

Third, I personally feel that America's greatness, its highest ideals and reputation in the world was expressed by the sentiments written at the feet of Lady Liberty. The tired, the poor, the hungry, the freedom seeking were the ones to be most welcomed here, not the connected, the lucky, the educated, the professionally skilled, the investors.

My America has open, not closed arms. My America sacrifices for the greater good, not seeks to gain by including only those that have. My America is generous to a fault, not stingy by design.

That's the America I would fight to defend. It is not now the America I live in.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

If they don't cost the government money then why would the government make it harder to get in? I agree with you on the second point simply because I know of people like this. I personally don't care if they come to this country. However, I would like it if they did it legally. As to the third point look at what I wrote.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The jobs being taken are ones shown to be those that, even during recessions, citizens don't take.

As someone who has worked in kitchens for 20+ years, I can tell you that is not the case. We compete with illegals on a regular basis but we also have much respect for our immigrant workers, legal or illegal.

Yes, cutting gov spending would hurt the poor. The problem is that gov spending is being used to cover the real cost of business, so society is paying the cost of business in this country. We need to stop the handouts. That will force working people to demand a living wage from employers. More gov spending just says to employers that it's ok to steal from society to make their business work and it's not. If a company cannot make it because labor cost, then they are a failed business and should make way for better models that work within the framework of society rather than draining it.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

HIGHER TAXATION! the old revolutionary slogan was to seize the means of production. that means of production has been AUTOMATED leading to MASS UNEMPLOYMENT. so we obviously need to increase taxation on the automated industries to compensate the would be workers! i know we are reincarnating spirits and we deserve increased unemployment benefits for generations of our slavery! this fulfills biblical prophecy! daniel 2 the stone cut out without hands is the silicon chip which destroys Babylon! that is automation destroys slavery. this is prophesised in Revelations: there shall be no more curse. the curse was to work the ground (genesis). "and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain that filled the whole earth!" the worldwide web!!

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

great post !!!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I have often found myself asking the same question. The government is so much more inefficient than the private sector, and yet people want bigger government. Now there are things only the government can do that private sector cannot. Such as military, Police, Education, and infrastructure. But the government needs to cut spending and eliminate tax loop holes

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 2 years ago

I would suggest slashing public spending and high tax on foreign goods.

[+] -5 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a fool.

this movement is in large measure all about holding people accountable - this nation has incurred debt - debt due to war, debt due to the economic collapse - and you would have us refuse to pay that debt.

you would have us tank the economy even further with such nonsense.

Revenue will be raised to meet our common obligation.

And we will hold those accountable for promoting fiscal policy and economic theory that has proven itself a sham.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

[-] 0 points by LongDaysnight (354) 2 years ago

It is you who is the fool if America refuses to pay the ILLEGAL debt incurred by a private banking system, so will Europe. It will e the end of austerity in the US and Europe. http://pavanvan.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/iceland-does-the-right-thing-refuses-to-pay-absurd-debt/