Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tax reform to correct the destructive wealth inequity we suffer under

Posted 3 years ago on May 30, 2014, 12:26 p.m. EST by 99nproud (2697)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Growing popular pressure to tax wealth/wealthy and invest in the people will result in the fair return of some wealth the 99% created.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/31/1060317/-National-Journal-poll-Overwhelming-support-for-populist-tax-reform

http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2014/03/06/republican-leader-shakes-up-the-gop-by-proposing-populist-tax-reforms/

That's good huh?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/195516-camp-makes-new-tax-reform-push

Certainly we must push all Pols to support the Robin Hood transaction tax!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/09/17/occupy-wall-street-anniversary-focuses-on-robin-hood-tax/

Increase pressure on ALL elected officials to fix the unfair tax burden that squeezes middle class workers to enrich the already wealthy!

Occupy the tax code!

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/12/13/occupy-the-tax-code/

In fact we must agitate to implement the wealth tax concept on a worldwide scale.

Africa knows.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201405281236.html

And more and more people are discussing it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/04/16/is-a-global-wealth-tax-the-key-to-reducing-income-inequality/

Time to get our money back! Tax reform that redistributes OUR wealth back to the decent hard working families who created it.

Solidarity

118 Comments

118 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

Tax reform is the least drastic method to deal with wealth inequality

also greater control of government and labor decisions

[+] -9 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

This is a loser argument, Just look at Hollande in France and look at history. We will not win political support with a wealth tax as the populace will not vote for it.

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

What do you suggest?

Are you familiar with the historically high 90% tax rate?

Anyway, the fight goes on.

We will continue to push tax reform as means of correcting these destructive inequities.

http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/09/occupy-anniversary-unions-rally-tax-wall-street

What are you gonna do,? Snipe from the sideline?

LMFAO!!!

[+] -7 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

Taking from one group to give to another just because one group has money and the other doesn't will never be approved by the populace and is bad policy as shown over and over again. The primary issue is the elimination of deductions and loopholes that allow some people to pay less than others. By treating all forms of income, wage, dividend, and capital gains the same, and eliminating all forms of deductions, then you will eliminate the inordinate results.

[-] -2 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

GSW, Yeah, that France example is really working out for them. But let's not look at empirical examples, how about some economic studies - http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

"Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

So we agree we can correct this destructive wealth inequity by reforming the tax code.

"... just because one group has money and the other doesn't..." No body but YOU put it, or see it (incorrectly) that way. We just want OUR money back.

So treat all income the same? Yeah, start taxin the income that the wealthy have had low/no tax on.

Leave working class tax deductions alone,thank you very much.

The goal is to get the working class economically healthy again.

Peruse some of this :

http://inequality.org/t/taxes/

Enlightening no?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

wealth is not income but property

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Wealth should be taxed!

That'll learn 'em! And this destructive inequity will be improved.

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

The article just speaks to the GINI measurement, so if your goal is to reduce differences in income between people, there is an easy answer to it, have everybody work for the government and then the government can issue the same amount of money to everybody.

Will this get the economy going again? History say not.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

hire back & expand public employment of course, but suggesting "everyone work for the govt" is impossible & not serious. And no body wants or is asking we all get "the same amount"

Also not serious.

More of a distraction, than an honest suggestion?

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

Why is this argument not serious, your goal is to reduce inequality, but not so much that we don't get the same amount?

Is the problem the inequality or something else?

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

The problem is not something else, it is the economic inequity that corp oligarchs created by purchasing the peoples govt and rigging the system against the 99%.

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

I don't see how corporate oligarchs have anything to do with inequality, and what the government has to do with it. The government can only take from people to give to another, so this goes back to socialism.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

The labels are less important to me.

However, the wealth of the people (the 99%) has been concentrated into the hands of a few (corp oligarchs (the 1%)), after decades of that group buying our elected officials and rigging the economic system against the rest of us. The 1% corp oligarchs CREATED this inequity with bad laws.

As such a correction must be implemented to get the peoples wealth back to where it belongs. With the people (99%) who created it!

I hope that helps.

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

So you want socialism? You want the government to control how much money people have. Should we all work for the government or what percentage should? What are your criteria. It sounds like you want some control, but only so much. How much?

I am not sure what laws would have stopped the inequality. What laws stop Chinese stop low cost manufacturing, what laws stop people from not getting educated. Maybe we should have our education systems worrying more about the fundamentals and less about organic food.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I agree we must change law to punish outsourcing of jobs & reward bringing jobs back. I also agree we should pass laws that make college free to working class.

As far as tax policy:

The govt already exerts influence on how much money people have through taxes.

I'm simply arguing we must reform tax law to have lower taxes on the working class & higher taxes on the 1%.

And I don't support all people work for govt. .I do support hiring to have many more food inspection, finance investigators/regulators. Public defenders, health workers.

Whatever has been cut on the false alter of austerity, & deficit reduction fallacies.

[-] 4 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

College should be free for everyone like in Scotland.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Aye,

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

It should also be required to pass a basic citizenship and geography test to get in. If you can't find Chicago on a map, you have no place studying anything else until you figure where you are first.

[-] 0 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

So you want to categorize people into working class and 1%? Should there be other categories as well. What are the definition and who should make these categorizations?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

The founders, founded our great nation by taking away the rights of indigenous people, African slaves, women etc. And only landowning white men had the right to vote.

I am not categorizing anyone. We ARE categorized.

Your debating categorization as a distraction from debating the substance of tax reform to correct the self destructive economic inequity.

Peace.

[-] -2 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

Debating categorization is not taking away from the substance of tax reform since if you want to tax people using different rates then you are the one categorizing. The most effective tax system is the one that is the easiest with no incentives for distortions. That is either a flat tax or a VAT where everybody and every type of capital is treated equally. Will this make everybody equal, No.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

The economy/cost of living along with an individuals income determines how they are categorized.

Not me.

If you have little income, and can't support your family you are working poor. We must help them most off all

If you make a million every year (a 1%'r) I'm not so interested in helping you.

I'm not angry with the 1%, I just know that they don't need me to advocate for them (you?).

get it.?

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

The country was founded on liberty and allowing people to pursue their dreams it was not founded on taking liberties away. These concepts are ingrained in our constitution and declaration of independence. By categorizing people by income you are just putting another control feature on the public. I absolutely advocate for the 1% and for the 99%. They should all be treated the same with no special favors for either.

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

What do you consider to be 'fundamentals'?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

College requirements are obviously necessary, but I will avoid those specific details.

I support stricter requirements though.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

IE: the main problem with socialism.

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

If socialism is the problem, then taking people's money and wealth via taxes is a problem. How are they any different.

[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

No taxes are better than low taxes. Voluntary taxes are even better than that.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I like increasing taxes on passive income, cap gains, dividends, royalties, rents, etc.

I am obviously against a VAT, of flat tax. They are regressive and only worsen inequity.

I prefer a progressive tax because will improve economic equity & resolve our economic sluggishness, by increasing consumer spending.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Do I get to decide how my money is spent or do? I have no problems paying taxes, I just want a say in how they are spent.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

OUR voices are loud, boisterous, & effective

"Our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless."??? HA! Speak for yourself.

Peace

.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I didn't write that. I'm just repeating it.

Your voice may be loud, but mine's sexy.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

You can have sexy. I'll take effective.

On topic:

Support Robin hood tax!!!

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Taxes should be voluntary for rich as well as the poor. Coercion isn't good in any case.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Yeah that'll work. How should we go about implementing that?

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I have no clue. I don't even know if it's possible. It's just that for me personally, such a situation would be desirable.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I suppose I could also fantasize about "desirable situations" but I gotta also keep up the fight for reality.

Buffet rule?

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I fight the good no matter what that means. No one starts climbing a mountain with the goal of getting half way up, they long to reach the summit.

"I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours." - Walden

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Walden was prophetic

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Walden IS beauty. My favorite book ever.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

We are truly fortunate to have such satisfying words & ideas.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Thoreau was truly a buddha.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

nice.

Speakin of Buddha, You think he got high?

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

you realize I wasn't using the word buddha as a proper noun. I'm not saying he was a Buddhist, just that he was a buddha. Haha.

It sad more people haven't actually read thoreau or Emerson.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

And a benefit that so many have.

Aah so, Grasshopper.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

You don't understand me. Haha. buddha is the Sanskrit word for "enlightened one". That's it. No religious connotations intended.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I'm not attaching religion. I was doin an old 'kung fu' asain teacher dude quote.

Only kiddin anyway.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I like you.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

You said that already. I still don't think that is likely.

But ok.

I don't think I dislike you, but I am purposely not getting too personal here.

This ain't facebook y'know

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I do. We disagree, but at least you don't randomly accuse me of things that I'm not and actually allow me to speak my mind.

Flup on the other hand wants everyone to think like he does and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid or likes Obama or whatever.

The whole point of me being here is to talk.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Flips purpose seems to be only to distract from substantive debate with attacks on the president and the Democratic party. I also have great criticism for them.

I just don't come here for that. I come here to get current info out on the issue I (& occupy presumably) care about.

And to annoy the Distractoids!

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

I have no problem with attacking Obama or his party. I just don't like being accused of supporting him or his party. Which I don't.

No subject is off limits in an open forum.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

As much as the rest of us.

I would support more direct voting (referendum type) on budget items if everyone voted.

Otherwise the current (corrupt) system provides you representation through your elected representatives who will decide budget matters.

Of course the representatives are bought and paid for by corp oligarchs in our current system so we must depend on ourselves to protest (& pressure ALL pols) for our spending preferences.

But you know all this. Please don't be offended, I'm not being obvious because I think you are stupid.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Why can't I just earmark my tax funds on a form when I send it in? (EX: $100 to NASA, $200 to USDOT, $0 to Military, ect.). Is that stupid?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Perhaps you can get a protest together on the specific issue of "earmarking individual taxes"

Good luck

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Or I could just not pay my taxes and donate that money directly to NASA for the time being.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

But I don't really care how you or anyone else chooses to spend their tax money. That's none of my business. I simply want control over my own taxes.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Perfect, It is likely they don't care about your spending choices either.

And I'm afraid your one voice is not even being heard.

Perhaps if your one voice could find like minded voices you could join together and be not only heard but heeded.

Your choice

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Except that force to me to help fund the military, be spite my objections against it. I have actually only paid income tax once ever and I ended up getting it all in refund anyway.

Our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless.

[-] -2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I agree no subject is off limits.

I prefer substantive debate to partisan flamewars. In fact there may be a rule against excessive partisanship or maybe campaigning.

Who knows, doesn't seem to be any real rules/moderation anyway.

I suppose I have t continue trying to move the conversation from flame wars to discussion.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Just keep expressing your opinion. Allow others to do the same too, including Flup.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Can't allow or disallow anyone from expressing themselves.

I encourage it. And I LOVE flamewars, I just dont prefer them

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I heard wealthy media monopolies don't like progressive taxes

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Sounds right.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Economic inequity requires Robin Hood Tax

http://nurses.3cdn.net/41527da3bc02ca6887_xxm6bn31d.pdf

Get on board, raise your voice, Agitate, agitate, agitate.!

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Trust Bill Moyers (if you are unsure).

We MUST pressure all elected officials (with massive growing protests, & votes) to reform taxes to correct the destructive wealth inequity that has smothered the 99%

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-how-tax-reform-can-save-the-middle-class/

Please watch this

[-] 2 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

Great episode, but he says answers are political, and we have little political voice, with little money we can not get this message to spread, like on Facebook? Twitter? Let's all pass out leaflets July 4

Even if message is heard, politicians don't give a crap what we think, they just want to stay in power

[-] 2 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

Let's register many to vote Fourth of July. Just a thought

Also pdf we can distribute on this important issue

They can't prohibit on July 4 freedom of speech

[-] 2 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

Generic Registration to vote

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_11-1-13_ENG.pdf

In almost all states, you can register by mail to vote using the National Mail Voter Registration Form. North Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not accept the National Mail Voter Registration Form. New Hampshire accepts it only as a request for an absentee voter mail-in registration form. If you live in one of these states, please check with your state election office to find out how to register to vote.

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Sounds pretty depressing.

You have any suggestions?

[-] 1 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

I have no personal funds to do a voter drive. Can it be crowd sourced, or organized and financed? My negative cash value is about to bury me forever, (got divorced, now broke in cash value)

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Oh well. I suppose the world will have to go on without us saving it.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

Also link up with this https://mayday.us

Might have resources or organization

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I encourage you to follow your passion in any non violent tactic to achieve progress on the issues that hurt the 99%.

Solidarity

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Solitude.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Soluble

[-] 1 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

Someone could organize to rent voter registration booth at 4th of July and fairs and farmers markets,

And another for some real news, free press, reach the youth and any remaining open minded persons

[-] 1 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

After-party,-business-cards, 1st register new voters to vote, then organize "after party" at fireworks sites, have potluck, speaker or topical information, educate the voters, and Newley registered voters, run every weekend, or 1st weekend of month

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

You want voter registration?

https://act.myngp.com/Forms/2727492524326256640?midqs=-1622421765760221184

You got it.

Don't say I never gave you nothing.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

The fact that this is an issue is very telling of who we currently are.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

How so?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Sounds great. Good luck.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

Sure. Sometimes you could get registration up by pushing specific issues.

Wage, Job, or tax issues (like this thread) for low income people.

Student loans for young people. etc.

What issues/people might you be interested in.?

[-] 3 points by gsw (3024) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 3 years ago

My area state is not too bad, legalized marijuana, voted in by the people, maybe is hope here. The general stagnation of all us economy and all worker wages is the issue, and how government does not help the common people, to get jobs going again

Edit I will add education and healthcare going up more than 1000 percent, that is a huge problem for all

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33167) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

OK = legalized marijuana - now get the state High on employment opportunities of marijuana - not the pot - but the hemp product possibilities. Plastics, cloth, building materials, food..................employment

[-] 7 points by Renneye (3874) 3 years ago

Amen!

Hemp & marijuana = mass health benefits & employment!!

What's not to love?!?!

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33167) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

What's not to love?!?!

TRULY !!! People have got to know of the numerous healthy and prosperous benefits.

And then there is also - This !!! -> Hydrogen; Nature's Fuel - YouTube

So many opportunities - healthy opportunities to do what is needed - cleanly - and all largely removed or kept away from Public view/education.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3874) 3 years ago

Niiice link on Hydrogen, DK. I've only watched the first few minutes, but it's way past my bedtime. I'll have to hit it again tomorrow.

Have a good night, DK.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33167) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Goodnight Renneye - it is a good vid even though in the beginning there is that guy talking about the continued use of fossil fuel. The vid shows what can be done ( is being done in some small way ) and the uses can be expanded in implementation in a very large scale manner. There is no excuse for someone saying it can't be done = transition ( immediately ) off of fossil fuel.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 3 years ago

This is a good thing (from 99nproud link) http://www.opensourceseedinitiative.org/

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33167) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Yes - seed for all plant-life - most especially for food crops - must be saved/protected from such monsters as Monsatan. For medicines as well. God save our rain forests.

[-] 0 points by draguartism (19) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

I am not religious. So, I say - Lights Out! - instead of - Amen!

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

And I say: "praise be to jebus"

[-] 1 points by draguartism (19) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

He he... I like that.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Can't smoke cotton.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33167) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Sure u can - but u really don't want 2.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

We agree.

Wages, jobs, healthcare, education govt for the people (not corps).

Protest for change, Vote out any pols who oppose us, pressure ALL pols for change that benefits the 99%

[-] -3 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

You are quoting a journalist who has no experience versus the economists who have actually done the work?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I don't think so. If you find a quote let me know.

You wanna comment on the substance of what they are proposing?

[-] -1 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

I linked you to an economic study conducted by economists. You linked me to a vide by Bill Moyers interviewing Joseph Stiglitz, who has only proposed a tax plan. There is no study behind his plan. He is saying that he wants a progressive tax system so that the government will take money from those to give to those making the least. If this system works, then socialism works, does it not?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

The label you put on it is less important to me.

But I already I said I support progressive tax policies.

I believe it is immoral to tax the income of the poor.

And the progressive tax changes required to get economic activity up is simply getting back the wealth that workers created anyway.

Right?

Not necessarily socialism, and certainly not proof that socialism works

[-] 0 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

The poor don't pay income tax. They only pay sales and payroll tax. This is due to the earned income tax credit which was first proposed by Milton Friedman way back in 60's.

I agree with you the poor should not pay income tax. A tax on any good raises the price of that good and is inherently onerous unless the tax is used for some strategic purpose. When the government takes from the public to either spend the money or redistribute the money that have taken that decision without any competitive market forces and is inherently inefficient. Large corporations without competition face the same oversight problem a la General Motors.

In my opinion, the US Fed should have never bailed out the financial system; I think that is what you are getting at. I had this argument with a Treasury official the night of the AIG bailout. Why, because it should not be the government making the decision to help one group over another.

A progressive tax system does the same thing. There is a very easy answer, a flat tax or two tier tax (if you want it progressive) that treats all income and capital gains at the same rate. This eliminates any incentive to game the system.

By the way, the action of the government does impact actions. The 1% is now hiding their money much more than they have in the past and are moving to low tax havens. This has happened in every country not just the US.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

"The 1% is now hiding their money much more than they have in the past and are moving to low tax havens. This has happened in every country not just the US."

Proof that the low taxes corps have written into our laws does not prevent the 1% from hide their (OUR) money.

So raise the rate on those criminals bastards (cut middle class taxes) to the same rate as our best economic times (the '50's) 90%.

Then penalize all 1%'rs who are hiding OUR money with massive penalties.

Use that revenue to absolve the immoral, unethical loanshark debt that banksters have dishonestly burdened us with.

Progressive? Socialist? Regressive? I don't give a @#$% what you wanna call it.

I call it JUSTICE!!!!!

[-] 1 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

The US was founded on liberty and personal property. It is a person's money not the government. This private property principle is written into the constitution and the laws so it is not your money.

The 50's weren't the best economic times, there was much higher growth rates in the 1800's. the 20's and the 40's.

Banks don't force people to borrow money. You never learned Caveat Emptor?

So now it comes out that you are just looking to redistribute.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

It is OUR money. We are the 'persons' they got their wealth from. Not the government but us the people.

I already explained the glorious founding F#@$ers. Refer to that answer.

Banks have been found guilty and otherwise settled numerous cases of lending fraud and dishonesty.

The criminal banks, (not the decent working class borrowers) crashed the world economy because of bankster greed and dishonesty.

I don't subscribe to your term 'redistribution'.

We want our personal wealth back, because the oligarchs took it dishonestly by buying our government and rigging the system against the 99%.

Just so you know.

[-] -2 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

It is not the government's money it is the people's money. The government does not have a right to confiscate private property.

All borrowers are the same whether they are decent or not. It comes down to how much they can afford and how much equity. Nobody forced buyers to borrow money and nobody forced institutions to buy the loans.

You might not like the founding fathers but that is our law and that is how the country was founded and has been organized since.

I disagree with your cause and effect. It has been shown that loose monetary policy is what causes excesses. See John Taylor at Stanford if you don't believe me.

The system isn't rigged. The system is competitive and right now it is benefitting those who are educated especially in engineering and math. It is obvious what is happening that jobs are going to those who are the most qualified.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

I agree it is not the governments money. That's why I said it is OUR money. 'the people'.

I agree nobody forced borrowers to borrow, But many decent working class borrowers were illegally given subprime mygs when they qualified for better ones.

And no borrower who defaulted because of unemployment (created by bankster greed and criminal acts) should be penalized for that criminal bankster behavior.

No cr card borrower should .feel any obligation to pay those criminal banks who colluded with other banksters to use unreadable, legalize agreements that don't even require a signature. Unreasonable fees, penalties, and loanshark usury interest rates.

Don't get me started on the immorality of charging interest (Or tuition)to educate our population.

You stand with the banks and the oligarchs.

I stand with the decent hard working Americans who deserve to get their government back from the oligarchs and use that government to GET OUR MONEY BACK from the oligarchs who took it when they bought the peoples government and rigged the system against the rest of us.!!!

I guess we disagree puffy. No big deal. That's why we are growing this powerful progressive movement,

[-] -1 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

It is not us vs. them or 1% vs 99%. The bankers are part of the public as well.

You are espousing government control and that will not happen in this country. In fact, it is going the other way as the people are recognizing that this era of control had not produced the jobs that they want. People remember the good times of the Reagan era and want to go back to it. It is moving that way. These things go in cycles.

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

We're going backwards? Why do we have to go back to the eighties? I hated the eighties. Reagan sucked. remember when he sold guns to terrorists or invaded Grenada or trained mujandeens or helped foster the culture wars?

[-] -1 points by puff6964 (-5) 3 years ago

You mean the decade where GDP was high and unemployment low. The decade where entrepreneurism took off? It was a time of unbridled optimism and enthusiasm.

The culture wars have been going on for a long time. I don't think Reagan had anything to do with it.

The 80's were a much better time than what we are going through right now. I

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 3 years ago

People are disgusted with Reagonomics/trickle down,conservative policies that benefit the corporatist oligarchs at the expense of the rest of us. These right wing wacko corp policies along with dereg & no taxes for 1%r's is what caused our jobs to be sent to the lowest bidder in the 3rd world.

I espouse control of the government by the 99% for the 99% and of the 99%.

You espouse keeping the peoples government in the hands of the corporations?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 3 years ago

Was it Nancy Reagan who started the drug war? Or is that just me?

The GDP was higher and the unemployment lower in the late 90s than either ever were in the eighties.

However, I could of been a teenager in Skokie or Evanston or Park Ridge in the eighties. Ferris Bueller didn't do so bad I guess.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Poverty rates of over 20% in the 1950s...

Where did this meme come from that the 1950s were this glorious time in the country when most poverty stats go in direct odds to this?

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/