Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Bush Tax Cuts Gave Your Social Security Money to the Wealthy

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 10:51 p.m. EST by AmericanCuChulainn (72)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's something that most people don't realize:

The ONLY reason Social Security is having any problems is that politicians from both parties looted this huge pool of surplus money to pay for other problems.

Every time they did so, they put an IOU into the system, saying that this money, which was--by law-- intended to pay Social Security recipients, would one day be paid back.

Well. At the end of the Clinton Administration, that money was there. Had that money gone to Social Security there would not have been any problems in the program as far as the eye could see.

I know Republicans aren't capable of remembering back further than the last election cycle, but some of you might remember that was one of the big arguments of the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore, mocked repeatedly by people not worthy of tying his shoes, wanted to put that surplus money in a "Lock Box," (remember that?) saving it for Social Security.

Bush, who co-opted every idea Gore had that polled well (remember that?), immediately began saying he would be Social Security's defender. Just one of the many lies that man told. Democrats criticized Bush for all the horrible things he really did. Republicans criticize Obama for all the horrible things they imagine he is doing.

So, when Bush stole the election from the one man who received more American votes for president than anyone else in history, one of his first priorities was to set in motion the DESTRUCTION of Social Security, by taking all that money he had PROMISED to the American people he would save for the Social Security that was due them...

and he gave it to the Wealthiest 1%.

Every day those Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to continue, the Globalist Wealthy Elite are feeding off the sweat and blood of the American Working People AND THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, sucking the vital life essence out of our great country like vampires.

And here's the kicker-- If you are a working man or woman and you support the Republican Party, you are assisting in your own destruction.

169 Comments

169 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

Agreed, I'm a working guy who does not support the Republican Party. Question is, how do we get my fellow clock-punchers to wake up?

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Or maybe all the social security money was spent on the Iraq war.

[-] 5 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

this Fellow up here is not very knowledgeable. He argues like a bright college freshman. That is, he's not really as clever as his mom has always told him he was.

But the Iraq war was another almost treasonous blunder by Bush. The first time in American history an American took us to war without paying for it, putting the entire bill on the deficit.

Where was the Tea Party then?

They didn't exist because they didn't have a black man in office to be afraid of yet.

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 8 years ago

Actually his explanation was right. I remember that bullshit that was being pushed by the NeoCons. "Help George Bush Save Social Security!" It was a TV commercial that would air sometimes when he was president. He was saving Social Security alright. Saving it for his fat-cat, pig rich friends. That's all that person did to this country. Ran it straight into the ground. And that was the plan all along.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

your technique is amazing. How do you win your arguments? With name-calling, insults and prejudice? You should work for the media.

[-] 2 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

You don't win arguments with people like that Fellow. He's not really arguing. Better to just point and laugh at the monkey peeing all over himself.

Do you really believe Republicans are after an honest discourse? When I see someone who does, I'll give it to them. Otherwise, I'm sick of their smarmy self-righteousness. If Christ were alive today, there's not one of these Pro-Life hypocrites who would recognize him. They'd crucify him all over again, calling him a commie and a hippie. And I don't appreciate that quality they have. So, sure-- I'll mock and demean them, because that's what they've already done to themselves.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Oh I thought you were referring to me. Hahahahahahahaha.

[-] 2 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Hey, no way, man! I got love for the Righteous! Throw out something, bro. Let's talk!

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

haha... that's funny. The Tea Party is 100% for Cane. And I have a feeling he likes Social Security.

[-] 3 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Cain probably likes Social Security so much he wants to wrap it up and give it as a present to his best buddies, the Koch brothers!

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

They all have Koch brothers; we're voting for Cain.

[-] 3 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Oh, no, you're kidding me! You are voting for Cain?!

You can't seriously believe his '9-9-9' plan is anything but a scheme to bankrupt the government and continue to redistribute American wealth to the top 1%?

I see that there is hope for you. Please continue to think things through. Don't stop--you're not there yet. I don't mean this as an insult-- I really do think you are onto something.

The only thing I might suggest is that the American government is not inherently evil, even a strong Federal government. It sure has been corrupted, but I think we've got a chance.

And all spending isn't bad. We should have the best public buildings and utilities and infrastructure of any nation in the history of the world. That costs money, doesn't it?

I honestly agree there is such a thing as wasteful spending, and there's no excuse for it. But I'd rather believe in America.

Good luck to you, sir. Just keep going!

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

No, of course, I don't believe 9-9-9. And either does Cain, the mathematician. To me that's an obvious campaign ploy.

I don't know where you're living but where I am public buildings are very poorly maintained.

I'm voting for Cain because I like his rationale, his honesty, and his values. It's a character thing; not an issues thing, because I begin with the basic premise that one must first be possessed of character.

[-] 3 points by JoshuaDChamberlain (4) from Lawrenceville, GA 8 years ago

Honesty and values? First of all, he's not a politician, but wants to be one. The only thing less honest or valuable than a politician is someone who wants to be one. He made a career calling his theory and opinion "news" while inciting anger and frustration in Americans to "up his ratings" and get a bigger paycheck, making him a profiteer of social discourse. Secondly, why won't he just give a simple answer to whether or not he should be considered a deviant in the area of sexual harassment? It's not like the White house is within 500 yards of a school, and I think that being honest about several sexual harassment charges being filed against you is a good foot forward in the area of honesty and morals.

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Well, listen (Obama says, "Look"; I say, "Listen.")... the less stupid among us, which is virtually everyone, knew this attack on Cain was coming. We all knew that the Dems were going to do the sexual background check. We were waiting for it.

One of the common themes of the Dem party, primarily inhabited by the pseudo intellectual, is that they mistakenly assume that they are far more intelligent than everybody else. And they're not.

Cain is pissed; I like it, because he has a right to be pissed. And you idiots, have nothing. I'm glad we've cleared the air, thank you very much, and I'm voting for Cain.

I would add to this that my choices rarely seem to make it to nomination.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

"I'm going to vote for the guy lying to me!" said betuadollar.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I've never met a politician that did not lie through his teeth.

But I live in a world of business. I understand the personal dynamics. Sexual harassment, and allegations of sexual harassment, are everywhere. It has to do with the very nature of hetero interactional dynamics in a world of mobility.

I'm voting for Cain. And screw those who are lying to me now because they lack character.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

What's your bullshit business? How do you participate in the looting of this country?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Heterosexual dynamics exist in all manner of business. Some of it may not be right, some of it may be labeled as "immoral" or even "criminal," but the criminals and their victims exist on both sides of the isle.

[-] 2 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Cain's values, huh? You must have been a big fan of Clinton.

I don't want a man as president that thinks he's gonna be my damn boss.

It speaks to his character that he would even propose 9-9-9, whether he believes in it or not. And if he's proposing things he doesn't believe in, then he's got no character.

But I sure don't think you're a bad guy. You might be as wrong as you could be about Cain and his character, but you seem like you've got heart.

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I loved listening to Clinton speak but I hated his politics. And the Clinton/ Gore involvement with Chinese crime syndicates, and the General who ordered Tiananmen Square, really turned me off.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

They all have Koch brothers, oh well, duh, yeah, uh, okay, guess that's just the way it is. Do you lube up before you bend over?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

And who does Obama have? He's owned, lock, stock, and barrel. And its been obvious to me since his third week in office.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

I am furious with Obama, but the Republican candidates are a joke and you are greedy and selfish.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Listen, I didn't vote for Obama the first time. Huckabee was my first choice, not that I'm religious, but I see him as a likable, reasonable, equitable guy of values. When that tanked, I backed McCain because he was the only one to even attempt to address the issue of National debt.

[-] 2 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

In other words you voted for Palin for Vice President. Wise choice.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I like Palin a lot yea.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 8 years ago

Cain the Koch brothers' brother from another mother. Figures the Tea Party supports this corporate puppet.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Can't be no worse than Obama...

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 8 years ago

You are so right CUU, Bush2 stole that money from the pockets of working Americans and give the rich the massive tax cuts now in place and that money was also used to fund his endless wars in the Middle East! That money he stole hid the fact that the SSTFund money was used to make up for the lost revenue of these massive tax cuts to the rich and corporations. They are now refusing to pay it back and have even go as far as to wanting to abolish Social Security and Medicare in order not to pay it back!

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 8 years ago

Hi AmericanCu, Good post. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by forOWS (161) 8 years ago

Thanks. I noticed and I don't know if anyone else did that media photo of some Italian government official who had a horrible look on her face because they had just moved to raise the retirement age in Italy. That is total bullshit! Likely to happen here in America very soon. The world needs to get off the monetary system of cash and go with a point system to pay for wages and everything else. It would control the greedy cash hoarders from getting anymore "tax breaks" and also control the absurd pay of CEOs.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

arguably the bush wars were also very expensive

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

factcheck.org has good neutral piece on the tax cuts.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

Let's see! Who do republicans hate? The list is mighty long:

Environmentalists, immigrants, teachers, public workers, union members, women seeking abortion, women practicing birth control, single mothers, women seeking medical care for their children, non Christians, people who believe in Evolution, liberals, people who believe in receiving social services for the taxes they pay, people who believe every one should be able to obtain affordable medical care just like in all other industrial countries, gays, gays wanting to serve their country, Arabs of any kind, the french, of course, pacifists and now CANADIANS, fo God's sake.

And not only do they hate these people, they use their jobs in Congress to punish and hurt these groups with the legislation they write and they do this everyday. They use their power to disinfranchise their enemies. The GOP are vile evil people AND they are the enemy of Democracy. They were elected to represent all Americans yet they have waged war against those they consider their enemies; and up until now, with the blessings of an ignorant and apathetic American public.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

oh look. Here is the GOP blocking a mortgage fraud task force in Congress.

Congress Introduces National Mortgage Fraud Task Force Act

http://www.mortgageloan.com/congress-introduces-national-mortgage-fraud-task-force-act-2815

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

The GOP loves to say the left caused the housing bubble. Here is what Bush did to create it:

President Bush and Home Ownership

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/president-bush-and-home-ownership/

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

Bush pushes home ownership opportunities for minorities

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/27/bush_pushes_home_ownership_opportunities_for_minorities/

Bush to push ownership society http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/election_bush_plan/index.htm

And here is a pretty speech by Bush pushing Home ownership.

Home Ownership and President Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' BANK FRAUD

September 17, 2004|From Terry Frieden CNN Washington Bureau http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-17/justice/mortgage.fraud_1_mortgage-fraud-mortgage-industry-s-l-crisis?_s=PM:LAW

FBI 2004 mortgage fraud

http://www.bing.com/search?q=FBI+2004+mortgage+fraud&go=&qs=n&sk=&sc=1-23&form=QBRE

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005/fcs_2005

AND BUSH"S justice department did nothing

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

it was not Barnie Frank and Bill Clinton but all those GOPERS in Congress who passed the bankruptcy bill and did away with GLASS STEGAL. That was Phil Gramm.

Bush pushed home ownership and refused to let 18 states reign in corrupt lenders in 2004 when the FBI said wide spread fraud was taking place in the mortgage industry.

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html Bush pushes home ownership opportunities for minorities http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/27/bush_pushes_home_ownership_opportunities_for_minorities/ Bush to push ownership society http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/election_bush_plan/index.htm Home Ownership and President Bush http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

here's a good article from Bruce Bartlett who was in Bush administration:

DO TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUE?21 commentsPosted on 26th July 2011 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues Bruce Bartlett, Bush tax cuts

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=19171

and more on tax cut lies of GOP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/break-free-corporate-tax-code-falls-shy-of-republican-rate-goal/2011/11/02/gIQA5ntdfM_story.html

Report casts doubt on GOP efforts to cut corporate tax rates without increasing deficit

http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue?

If I have one criticism of OWS, it is that I don't find them on the comment pages of WP, NYT, Politico. These websites are viewed by many middle of the roaders who could be swayed

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 8 years ago

There is a reason all of the Republicans call for the end of SS instead of fixing it. They know they robbed the hen house and don't want to get caught with egg on their face.

[-] 1 points by FightingSenior (1) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Fight Back! Why Congress wants to end Social Security! Congressmen are eligible for a lifetime pension after 5 years, that goes far beyond anything you will ever collect on SS.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-united-states-congress-cut-government-pensions-not-social-security#

[-] 1 points by DocWatson (109) 8 years ago

We need to make Bush the focus of the 2012 Presidential campaign. Let's frame it as Obama vs Bush. That makes the choice pretty simple.

[-] 2 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

How about frame it as Obama vs. an entire political party who--when America was facing the worst income disparities since the Crash of '29 and when unemployment was hovering above 9%-- said, that their number one goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

Not jobs for Americans, not growing the economy, no-- nothing that could be seen as helping Americans

Let's have Obama run against a Republican party that hates having a black man in office so much they'd be willing to destroy the country than live in it with him.

Let's make that the focus of the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

Structural Classism

Lack wealth: Take out loans, mortgages, use credit cards, and work off the debt

Have wealth: Invest money and reap rewards

Banks = usury = inequality.

Even value of tasks performed are subjective. Use unethical tactics to become 'too big to fail' and your value increases.

Why else does someone researching a cancer cure get paid less than a CEO?

Monetary system = unethical competition = differential advantage = inequality

Learn about alternatives to the monetary system such as a resource based economy.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

I was outraged when Bush did this. A 1.4 trillion tax break for the 1st round. The economy went into deficit a few months later. Of course, the American people never noticed, nor cared., just like they didn't care about torturing innocent human beings

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

here's some ammo for you:

Bush had the lowest job creation of any President since Herbert Hoover, less than 3 million jobs. Clinton created 24 million. Even Bush's father created 1 million more and only had one term to do it. here is an article from the WSJ: JANUARY 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ By WSJ Staff President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office. His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Okay, here come the League of Barbaras to save the day! You women are awesome.

Bush cut taxes AND took us to war. As Cheney--hero of the Tea Party--said, "Deficits don't matter."

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

That shoud be on the top of the demand list is for the government to pay back what they took from Medicare and social security.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

A lot of cool people named 'Barb'!

You speak it, sister!

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

www.factcheck.com says it differently though about Bush's tax cuts (which Obama supported as well and extended them).

I think the Robin Hood Tax is a better idea.. like the one conservative David Cameron and even Bill Gates and Warret Buffet supports. Even Obama liked the idea. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7487081/Conservatives-will-impose-tax-on-banks.html

Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Sir, for those of us who grew up reading Stan Lee's Marvel Comics and like things spelled out for us, could you... spell that out a little more?

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

here's a good article from Bruce Bartlett who was in Bush administration:

DO TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUE?21 commentsPosted on 26th July 2011 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues Bruce Bartlett, Bush tax cuts

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=19171

and more on tax cut lies of GOP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/break-free-corporate-tax-code-falls-shy-of-republican-rate-goal/2011/11/02/gIQA5ntdfM_story.html

Report casts doubt on GOP efforts to cut corporate tax rates without increasing deficit

http://rricketts.ba.ttu.edu/Tax%20Rates%20and%20Revenues.htm

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue?

If I have one criticism of OWS, it is that I don't find them on the comment pages of WP, NYT, Politico. These websites are viewed by many middle of the roaders who could be swayed

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

well not all of us want to click on hyperlinks, but my arguement is that they're pretty much the same whether it's foreign policy or tax cuts etc.

It's almost like a stage. Maybe OWS is being co-opted as well? hm...

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

You're saying the Democrats and Republicans are the same? Yeah, I agree. One wise lady said here a while ago (oh, it was MrsPhil) they're both different sides of the same coin. You might say, 'I hate Dark Chocolate!' another says 'I hate Milk Chocolate!' It's all chocolate.

And, is OWS being coopted? I'm sure they're trying!

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

the republican party is full of right wing zealots. Democrats have the Blue dogs that are no better, but there are still many moderate Democrats and they mostly propose bills that are beneficial for the average Joe as opposed to the GOPERS who gut the poor, woman, immigrants, college kids and the middle class every chance they get. You need to read the bills both sides propose and then make up your mind.

GOP wrote that horrible bankruptcy bill and passed it over a Clinton veto threat. It lets the rich just write off a lot of their debt in bankruptcy. The only group it prevents from ever writing off debt are people with student loans. There is no end to EVIL the GOP does. The democrats are NOT THE SAME.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

This is what the masses seem unable to grasp:

 If we replace our current leaders with human beings, they will sell out just as far as the current bunch. Our leaders weren't born sold out. Wall Street executives weren't born evil. They were born human. With a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community. 

When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.

Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution came mechanized transportation, air conditioning, and television.

We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.

Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, just about everyone wants to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.

How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.

Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan on such corrupt influence. She never intended for any of us to seek or attain extreme personal wealth. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising basic morality.

Extreme wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.

Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this: 

If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?

If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?

Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most corrupt influence in the history of mankind.

I speak the ugly truth. 

There will be no reform on Wall Street.

There will be no recovery for the vast majority. 

There will be no government "of the people" and "for the people". 

Not one of us will live to see it.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

Hate to say it, but your right.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Wow, that's REALLY depressing. And here I was hoping that if we passed Constitutional Amendments that Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech, we'd have a chance.

But... you're saying we've GOT no chance... aren't you?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 8 years ago

We might be able to make a dent. That's all. Still worth fighting for.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

This was a great post.

But the comments?

Lookit these fuckin dittoheads.

They got bent over and they liiiiiiiked it!

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

I don't follow links people post. What does it say?

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

It's an analysis of tax policy and it includes a lot of charts. I can't summarize it here. It lines up with your thinking but goes beyond it and it's eye-opening. It's written by a fellow OWSer and is not dangerous.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Sir, you might find the charts and graphs of Jeffrey Sachs quite interesting. We are living in the time of highest income disparity since just before the crash of 1929.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Honestly, sir, I don't know. I never talk politics with my co-workers, and rarely do I discuss it with my students (I teach science, so the only time I talk about politics is when I belittle politicians and pundits who are anti-science).

[-] -2 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Need help making a t-shirt. We need to draw a picture of Zooccotti Park with a cage around it. Here are some ideas: Draw a hippie climbing the cage like a monkey and throwing shit.
Draw a hippie rolling in mud and shit like a pig.
Draw a hippies fucking like dogs.
Draw a picture of a hippie eating peanuts like a big fucking elephant. Draw a hippie as a lazy fucking Ape doing nothing.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I said it before and I'll say it again: draw a hippie going Hells Angels at Altamont on your ass, fuckwad. If you're not old enough to remember, look it up, Gates.

[-] 1 points by ValerieSolanasAKAHippieChick (29) 8 years ago

Oooooo baby! Hell's Angels at Altamont? Let's me & you go for a ride, hunny.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Let me get this piece of shit Fat Boy tuned up (again!) and we'll be on our way. ;-)

[-] 1 points by ValerieSolanasAKAHippieChick (29) 8 years ago

Vrrrroooom, vroooooom!

Bang, zooom!

[-] -1 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

You have a kind chin.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I have to admit, for a rabble-rouser, I do like your sense of humor.

[-] -1 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

I have enjoyed your humor too. ;)

[-] 1 points by ValerieSolanasAKAHippieChick (29) 8 years ago

Hippie this, you dumb bastard.

Cmere & lemme do an Andy Warhol on your pathetic ass.

S.C.U.M.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Perfect, a ass eating hippie chick. What animal do you want to be?

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Well, we know the level of discourse we'll get from you.

[-] -1 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Your discourse is pointless too. No one listened to you when you were a child. Guess why?

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

you argue like a two year old child. If i were as stupid as you, I'd keep my mouth shut

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

?

I'm not surprised you don't make sense.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

You can't see your a douche, we get that, douche.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Can I ask you an honest question?

Do you talk that way about the Occupy protesters because you call yourself a Christian and see the people protesting as somehow immoral?

Because when I see your posts, I see a filthy human being that's nothing but a bully at best. I'd hate to see your worst.

On the other hand, I see the Occupy protesters and I see people who love their country standing up against injustice and greedy bastards loyal only the Global Elite. They are trying to save this country, and they deserve our respect.

You, on the other hand, deserve no respect.

[-] -1 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

They deserve to be caged up and made fun of. That's it. They are worthless trash. But you know that already.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Please tell me you don't call yourself a Christian.

Please tell me that, naw, you're really not a church-goer.

Please.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

I'm an atheist douche. Church is for the weak like you douche.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

richardgates, you are a sick piece of work with a filthy mind. nothing you said in your post to me had anything to do with this article or with facts. Just name calling like all of you right wing dumb bells. here's some facts for you about the housing crisis and Bush pushing his ownership society then ignoring FBI reports in 2004 of widespread fraud in the mortgage industry:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

Bush pushes home ownership opportunities for minorities

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/27/bush_pushes_home_ownership_opportunities_for_minorities/

Bush to push ownership society http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/election_bush_plan/index.htm

And here is a pretty speech by Bush pushing Home ownership.

Home Ownership and President Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

FBI 2004 mortgage fraud

http://www.bing.com/search?q=FBI+2004+mortgage+fraud&go=&qs=n&sk=&sc=1-23&form=QBRE

FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' BANK FRAUD

September 17, 2004|From Terry Frieden CNN Washington Bureau http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-17/justice/mortgage.fraud_1_mortgage-fraud-mortgage-industry-s-l-crisis?_s=PM:LAW

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

I'm an anarchist you ass witch. I agree with all your links, duh. Why the fuck would a left wing Dem or a right winger spend one minute here. Pull your head out of yor anus.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

what facts are you talking about?.Richard? the only facts the right wingers have are the ones made up in their own sick heads, the facts full of hate and distortions I haven't seen ACC post anything that wasn't true.

As for ACC, if a link is to a valid news article supporting someones opinion, I think you should consider it. People should back up their arguments with factual reports and articles. This is in relation to a comment you made elsewhere. I also think OWS needs to get onto the comment pages of the WP, Politco and the NYT more. You are really under represented there.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

Barbara, please help fund this.

Need help making a t-shirt. We need to draw a picture of Zooccotti Park with a cage around it. Here are some ideas: Draw a hippie climbing the cage like a monkey and throwing shit.
Draw a hippie rolling in mud and shit like a pig.
Draw a hippies fucking like dogs.
Draw a picture of a hippie eating peanuts like a big fucking elephant. Draw a hippie as a lazy fucking Ape doing nothing.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

You presume much, but, okay. You're every bit the trash you talk about, and you're okay with that. Cool.

[-] 0 points by Richardgates (133) 8 years ago

How does distorting facts make you happy? Because you've failed in life, you have to spew hate? Mirror baby mirror. Use it and yell at it! Not here douche.

[-] 0 points by chestRockwell (-4) 8 years ago

This is idiotic. He didn't give anything to the wealthiest 1%. Not taxing somebody on money that is theirs is not giving them anything. I know that is impossible for you to understand this.

Here your just pointed out that the government spent the social security money and then your saying people should give more money to it. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 8 years ago

So what do you suppose is going on with the Obama payroll tax breaks? you do know that he cut the withholding for social security which means much less funfing for SS is going on now.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

What twisted logic. The Democrats are spending our money on social program and pork and that spending is taking the social security monies at a faster pace than the tax cuts. Anyone who supports the democrats are assisting in their own destruction.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

In the late 1990s I remember watching as Clinton and Congress debated the fate of a claimed 120 billion dollar deficit surplus. My focus was rather intense, and as they debated, I repeatedly urged them on: "put it towards the debt, put it towards the debt, pay down the debt." End result - they put 40 billion on the debt and spent 80 billion. And as we all knew, such a surplus was impossible, based on the state of our economy, without some rather creative accounting methods. They are all corrupt and none of them have favored the protection of Social Security. Bush repeatedly recommended that it be eliminated entirely. I don't know what Gore may have done but he was definitely robbed of an election by a Supreme Court that has no business whatsoever interfering in the election process. Anyway, y'all need to read this to get a little taste of "real"; it's not the entire story of Social Security "reform" but is does present a very brief background.

http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentary/V38N6

[-] 0 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

you are so mistaken. The social security that they collect today goes to pay people today. It is a big ponsy scheme. There has always been IOU's for your future money. Clinton changed the accounting system and did not take the IOUs into account when balancing the budget, hence the surplus. This is also why everyone has been saying it will go broke when the baby boomers retire, because there are not enough working people to support them. This has been talked about for decades.

You are just another hate filled Democrat. You hate the Republicans for what the media has told you they are doing, or what you have been told they want to do. Stop believe all the bullshit on TV and do some investigating of your own.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

http://www.thenation.com/blog/164375/smearing-social-security

Smearing Social Security William Greider on November 3, 2011 - 2:19pm ET

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

you have your own set of facts, don't you. what utter drivel. Just because some right wing dimwits talk about something doesn't make it accurate. SS had nothing to do with Clinton's surplus. He had a slighly higher tax rate for the wealthy and he reduced spending and many government programs. It was actually Gore's job to cut out wasteful programs and he was very successful. Read CBO accts of this available on the web.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Brian, I'm sorry, but you are the one who is mistaken. Had the congress not raided it, there would have been a big enough surplus waiting to take care of the baby-boomers.

You call me a hate-filled Democrat. I'm not a Democrat. See, you didn't know that. You jump to conclusions. The Democrats might say the right words, but they are spineless. The Republicans claim to be the party of Christian values, and yet they claim spawns of Satan like Rush Limbaugh.

Wait--that's it. I've got a question for YOU.

Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? Do you agree with him?

I can't wait to hear your answer.

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

I use to listen to Rush, but not lately, like the last 10 years. He rants too much. He is also doing the shock jock type of reporting. He takes things out of context and makes them inflammatory to arouse his "base".

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29#The_1983_Amendments_and_the_Social_Security_Trust_Fund

non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund is an IOU, not money

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Right. The congress took the money and left us with IOUs. When the money to pay the IOUs started coming in, Bush gave it to his "base," as he called them, the wealthiest Americans.

While there are good, decent honest Americans out there, breaking their damn backs, both husband and wife, working sun up to sun down, and unable still to provide for their families, and we have that GOD DAMN smarmy bastard Bush enriching the bank accounts of the people who need it least at their expense.

These people need to pray there's no Hell.

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

damn, we have a Gore lover in the house :)

The Sky is Falling the Sky is Falling.

will CWS turn into a "Global Warming protest"? With November upon us I bet most demonstrators wish there was some man made global warming.

or wait, they changed that to global warming makes it sometimes colder also. right?

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

You don't believe the climate is changing?

Wait, let me guess... You're a Creationist who believes the entire universe was created 6,000 years ago, right?

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

umnn nope. and i never said the climate doesn't change

I just don't believe mans impact on the planet is so severe although it could be. pollution bad, clean air good YES.

because of man we will all soon melt from the heat, the sky is falling the sky is falling Al Gore and hide the scientific reports untill he gets his nobel prize? yes I saw that, i was conscience

[-] 0 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Can I tell you something? I have advanced degrees in both Biology and Chemistry. I've worked on environmental projects, and I've seen the data.

The climate really is changing and man really is causing it. Did you know that man has even changed the rotation of the earth (admittedly by the slightest fraction of a percentage) by all the dams he's built?

Look, I'm saying this as someone who really does know what he's talking about. I'm not some middle-management guy in a call center, or whoever these climate-change people are.

And I'm not a geologist, either. I find it hilarious everytime I hear a "scientist" that is a climate-change denier and I find out he's a geologist working for a petroleum company, or I hear a "scientist" who doesn't believe in evolution, only to find out he's an engineer. An engineer! Ha!

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that the human organism can change the climate. After all, it was photosynthetic bacteria that created the oxygen atmosphere we have now! Prior to their appearance on earth, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or the oceans. Iron didn't even rust.

I will offer hope on global warming. While we are producing carbon dioxide, which traps heat, volcanoes release sulfur dioxide, which promotes cooling. If we were to have a lot of volcanic activity, enough of it could conceivably reverse the warming trend.

Another thing to consider. All the fossil fuels we are using date back to the Carboniferous period. At that time there was one continent, and it was almost completely covered by forest.

All the carbon in the atmosphere was being used as building material for this great world-forest.

And we know that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was lower, as we would have expected, if carbon were in the trees and not the atmosphere.

Then, all that carbon was trapped for millions and millions and millions of years. The Earth will never have any more carbon than it had when it first formed, 4.5 billion years ago. That carbon, trapped in the earth, simply wasn't available to exist as carbon dioxide.

Until the industrial age. Now, man is bringing all that carbon up, trapped for over 100 million years or more, burning it in an oxygen atmosphere, and creating carbon dioxide.

And that really is beginning to have a warming effect on the planet. It really, really is.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

Keep up the great work , ACC. The only scientists saying Global warming isn't happening were paid for by the Oil companies. We should also point out, even if it weren't happening, what is wrong with protecting the environment for our children. If we err in denying it and it is true, we have destroyed the planet. If we have erred and there is no global warming, we have still done something beneficial.

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

it's not that you are wrong.

it was the Over dramatizing of global warming that caused you to loose your audience. My reference to Chicken Little and the sky is falling was exactly how Gore looked. YES we need to pay attention to our impact on the environment. All in moderation my friend, we realized it when you did. we just didn't run around flapping our arms and panicking.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Mr. Tomcat68, sir, if the house is on fire, and everyone's sitting around the TV enthralled by the latest ACORN conspiracy, I think it's okay to scream and yell and flap your arms to get their attention.

And why not try going to the people flooded out in Thailand and tell them that what they're going through is nothing to be panicked about. Hey, it's all in moderation, right?

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

ahh just as I thought.

a global occurance you happen to notice changes over time hot to cold, a living planet you can't predict the weather to be as it is in some wonderland bubble. You've stumbled onto something that has been going on since the beginning of time and still you compare it to a house fire or a flood.

I really didn't think you understood. but, Thanks for your post

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

No, sir, I'm not going to let you get away with that. What you are meaning to imply that since there is a difference in climate and weather, if I point to a temporal event such as a flood event then that somehow negates my statements about the climate.

Cheap shot, and not worthy of you. See, when you use a cheap shot, you are trying to shut down the discussion at a point advantageous to you. That's dishonest, and I'm calling you on it.

See, I didn't use the Thailand example as evidence, I used it as a consequence. And that's valid.

Now, I want you to admit your shenanigans there and man up. I've attempted to give you an honest discussion from an educated perspective. I was thinking you were worthy of it. But if you really are the same as any other right-wing, ignorance-worshipping dittohead, then I guess I was wrong about you.

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

I love the Internet, a Giant melting pot of thoughts and Ideas from every mind on the planet. what remains after a "decade" will be only the most tangible.

I apologize if I have ruffled your feathers, so to speek. you have the floor.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

No, I got nothing else to say on the subject. It just seems like you know there's climate change going on, you know that man's contributing to it in a measurable way, but you just don't want to be caught dead with that girl!

Hey, she may have one eye lower than the other, but she's a good kisser. Go ahead and go for it! ;)

[-] 0 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

Another Bush-blamer?! Get over it!!! Congress stole the Social Security money. As for Obeezy, his Stimulus didn't do jack except stimulate anger!

[-] 2 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

At least I was able to type-out Bush. You don't even have the decency or the dignity to type out the name of your own president!

What kind of man are you? Not much of one. You can't even tell the truth. The Stimulus, while too small, did a lot of good. That's why you're not much of a man. Not only can you not call the duly elected president of the United States by his name, but you are unwilling to give him credit for the good he's done.

I'll be you didn't give him credit for getting Osama, either, did you?

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

The military did it. While he is the head, he didn't carry out the action. And it is a fact Congress took the money, not Bush. And I wrote Obeezy just to spite the gloating. You failed to type his name too, hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

And if Osama had been brought down while Bush was in office, you would have given him all the credit. I know your kind.

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

No. That is illogical. The one(s) who shot the bullet(s) get the credit.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

And I'm saying you're not being honest with that answer.

[-] 1 points by Tommiethenoncommie (211) 8 years ago

Do you have a time machine? No. Regardless, I would not hive him credit. Same with the Somali pirates. The ones who fired get credit.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

The stimulus was too small????? So, you are saying there should have been more tax reductions? hahahahahaha Were you aware that a full third of the turd of a stimulus bill was tax reductions? hahahahahah

[-] -1 points by foreverleft (233) 8 years ago

Do leftists actually believe this stuff or do you just hope to fool stupider leftists into believing it?

[-] 1 points by BrainC (400) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Yes, they actually believe this stuff.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

I know you don't believe it because, apparently, you lack the intellectual capacity.

You get your news from Fox News, don't you? Are you a 'Pat Robertson'-type of Christian, too?

[-] 0 points by foreverleft (233) 8 years ago

Yes, sweetie, you believe all the big bad boogieman stuff your masters tell you about the evil "cons". :)

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

No, dumb-ass. I don't.

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

What a STUPID comment. Do you really think there was actual money in Social Security when Clinton left office? Do you REALLY???????

There were the same non-negotiable government securities there that are there today. That's right. The same as today. Come one prove me wrong on that......haahahahahah. you can't.

Were you really that misinformed? Or were you lying?

Please tell me which, you have amused me.

[-] -1 points by MaxRommel (57) from Ridgefield Park, NJ 8 years ago

Well i'm 68 years old and make about $250,000 a year. I also earn $32,000 a year in S/S. But hey, I paid in and I earned it. America, what a country!

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

That's exactly right. You earned it, and this is a great country.

Now what you need to do is speak up and tell your elected representatives to get rid of the Bush Tax cuts so everyone else can also have what they worked for and earned.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

If social security really is a trust fund, and not a ponzi scheme, then income tax cuts would have nothing to do with this. Payroll taxes go into social security and social security then pays out the benefits to the recipients. Why on earth are you talking about raising income taxes when income taxes have NOTHING to do with social security?

Please try to save face and explain how income taxes have anything to do with social security? This will be fun to watch, but it can't be done. ahjahahahhhahahahah

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Maybe you're not as knowledgeable as you'd like to think. You certainly weren't listening, but then, people with agendas rarely do.

Income taxes are general revenue with which the government operates.

Social Security funds are not general revenue. They are earmarked for a specific purpose

For decades, both parties of congress used the money coming in, which should have gone to pay later retirees, as general revenue. Instead, they put IOU's in the fund.

When we had the tax surpluses at the end of the Clinton years, those IOU's should have been paid.

They were not. Bush looted the wealth of the American people, as he would do again in the bailout (that was Bush, remember?) by giving the money to his wealthy cronies instead of paying back money already owed to the American people.

If you don't get that, Fellow, then you are either too ignorant to get it or you are lying, and I won't waste my time on you again.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

So you do admit that there were only the dubious non-marketable government securities in social security all along. Thank you for making my point. The tax surpluses were never even close to being enough to redeem all of those non-marketable securities. Plus, much of those surpluses were derived from the short term effect of the technology bubble. Remember all of those stock options that were cashed, with huge taxes being paid each time? It was all smoke and mirrors, but the taxes got paid because of the bubble.

[-] 0 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Doesn't change the fact that the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest were money that was due the Social Security recipients. That was real money. It wrecked our economy. But hey, the top 1% saw their incomes go up 275% while people who actually do, you know... real work, saw their incomes stagnate.

Here's the thing. I realize that the kind of person who believes the things you do is not a Christian, and you've never called yourself one. But I just have no sympathy for the Wealthy Global Elite who despise the poor and working class, and I just don't think very highly of people who are that way. They are not good people.

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Cutting income taxes has NOTHING to do with social security. NOTHING. Any increase in income taxes does not mean that the tax flow is dedicated to socail security. Geez.

And who are you to say if I am a christian or not? The best rule of thumb is to look for the one making the judgements reserved for God to make. So, you don't need to bother yourself with my Christianity. And for you to imply that I despise anyone (other than you) proves that you are the loser. Loser.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

When I see a Mammon worshipper, I know I'm not looking at a Christian. It's just as plain and simple as that, no kidding. You can't be a Christian and follow Ayn Rand. You just can't.

As for the discussion of taxes, income taxes is revenue. There's a debt needing to be paid to the American people. You need revenue to pay that debt. I'm not talking about the money coming in through Social Security now. If even one penny of that money goes to anything else but paying benefits, that should be a crime. Additional revenue needs to come in to pay back what was taken out of Social Security. When that additional revenue came in, Bush diverted it to another purpose.

People who will never live to spend the money got the money. People who depend on that money just to put food on the table did not. It's really not hard to figure out.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

I agree the excess inflows of the social security payroll taxes should not have been borrowed by the treasury. But, you blaming that on Bush is freaking stupid. Bush probably wasn't even alive when that started. To be constructive, you need to start with being honest.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

I think Bush was alive when he pushed for his tax cuts.

Unless there's something you know that I don't...

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Get a brain. I said the first time excess social security inflows were borrowed by the treasury may have been before Bush was born. As I said, to be constructive, you need to start with being honest.

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

you couldn't be more off base if you tried lol!

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Could you please explain yourself? You may be wrong and don't know it.

[-] -1 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

your hopeless. not worth my time. how much should the 1% pay in federal income tax? that means everyone above $347,000 .

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Figaro, I'm saying you don't have the tools to explain-- meaning you don't really know what you're talking about. You're also afraid I will shoot your arguments down.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

ACC....from having read the tripe you write, no one is afraid of you.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

ok - you win - good luck I asked a question and got no answer.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Okay, I'll go for your question. We should have the same tax rates in place as during the Clinton Administration. Those were good years for our country economically.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

so you think taxing people making over 347K 40 % instead of 36% is going to make all the difference in the world? you realize there were middle class tax cuts as well ? so people making 50K will have their taxes go up as well.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

The CBO has scored what the Bush tax cuts cost us in revenue and it is 3 trillion dollars and yes that would go a long way in getting us out of this mess. The ones Obama just passed will cost 780 billion over 10 years. This is real money we are talking. GOP is always all for raising sales tax which guts the poor while they give huge breaks to corporations and billionaires. SOOOO Ridiculous these people get elected

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

Yep. There would be no deficit problem if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire on even those making over $250,000.

And you know what? If we just passed constitutional amendments that corporations are not people and money is not speech, we'd go a long way towards seeing that everyone here were in that bracket.

The Occupy people are creative and energetic. They want jobs. They want to create their own businesses. They want a country that is fair to them so that they can achieve their potential.

Please don't fall for the trap all they want is a handout. They want the fairness that America is supposed to provide.

This is the greatest nation that ever existed on the face of the earth. These people know that. But they also know that something ugly is happening, and it is destroying our country.

Please don't be fooled by Fox News and the Kock Brothers. Please.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

you are right on OCC. You will never convince the right wing people who come here. They are not capable of debate and I don't think they have a concept of fairness. Something about their psyches make them want to hurt other human beings, maybe inferiority complex or something. They want to damage the earth, the poor, immigrants. There is no end to the evil they do. They view almost everything around them as threatening to themselves and they seek to destroy. Just an observation.

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

No, ma'am, I think you are onto something. When I've had discussions with conservatives, the human suffering for them is all theoretical. They talk about millions of American lives as cooly as they might ice melting.

It's been said that, 'A man who is warm cannot understand a man who is cold,' and I think that perfectly describes the ability of conservatives to feel compassion for a less fortunate person.

What is worse is when conservatives attempt to use the myth of "choice." That, if someone is not doing as well as a rich man, it's because they made 'bad choices.'

That is a lie told by someone who has no capacity to understand anything.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

yes, like I said. No sense of fairness whatsoever. Like someone who grows up in the ghetto has the same opportunities as a CEO's kid who is sent off to Harvard. No brains. No ability to think rationally. Swallow lies whole without thinking critically about what is being said.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

funny - the GWB tax cuts actually increased revenue - but that's not important - what's important is to make things more "fair" in your eyes.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

Bush had the lowest job creation of any President since Herbert Hoover, less than 3 million jobs. Clinton created 24 million. Even Bush's father created 1 million more and only had one term to do it. here is an article from the WSJ:

JANUARY 9, 2009, 12:04 PM ET Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

By WSJ Staff

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

this is an absolute lie. Tax breaks do not increase revenue.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

you still havent defined what you think is "fair" or "Rich"

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

define "fair share" define "rich" - your idea of fair might be different than some others. "Rich" is also in the eye of the beholder. We've got the richest poor people in the world in the U.S. - Pleeaasse!

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

the rich are currently paying taxes at the lowest rates in decades after we had 2 one trillion dollar wars. The rich are the 1 % for sure who are getting off scot free since Bush tax cuts. And huge corporations making billions. they use our infrastructure, profit from having a free society to function in. If they were patriots, they would pay taxes. 37 of the largest corporations paid zero taxes last year while gutting their employees pensions and health care.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

what is Rricketts ? pleasse! the Washington Post article (left leaning) doesnt even address the question so I dont know what that was. Have it your way - raise the taxes. How long will it be before the govt comes begging for more? and more? and more? They have enough money. How about they start spending it more wisely.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

the rich and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes which they do not do especially after Bush tax breaks that took 3 trillion out of revenues. The rich are now taxed at the lowest rate in decades and many corporations making billions in profits don't pay a dime of taxes. then they want to gut medicare and ss which had nothing to do with the two wars costing a trillion a piece and the Bush cuts which gutted revenues. It's amazing how people like yourself are for policies that hurt you and your family.

[-] 1 points by Barbara555 (78) 8 years ago

oh human events??? Give me a break. I send you government studies and you send me ultra right wing propaganda. And what did the fat drug addict, draft dodger Rush Limbaugh fill your pretty head with today??

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

were is your backup Barbara555?

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

No, sir, they did not. Nor did they create jobs. There was a net loss of jobs by the end of his term.

You Republicans just can't get it right, can you? Best your kind stay out of elective office.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

so you have a way of eliminating all market corrections?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

ok . so unemployment wasn't 4.5% in 2004? better than Bill Clintons rate at the same point in his presidency? better look it up instead of drinking the kool aid the media feeds you.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

www.factcheck.com says it differently though about Bush's tax cuts (which Obama supported as well and extended them).

I think the Robin Hood Tax is a better idea.. like the one conservative David Cameron and even Bill Gates and Warret Buffet supports. Even Obama liked the idea. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7487081/Conservatives-will-impose-tax-on-banks.html

Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

[-] 1 points by AmericanCuChulainn (72) 8 years ago

It tanked disastrously after that. And you know it did.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Good comments, figero. You showed how shallow ACC really is.