Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: the most fraudulent budget in American history.

Posted 2 years ago on April 2, 2012, 6:49 a.m. EST by flip (7174)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

So what are we to make of this proposal? Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t. You should think of those promises, instead, as a kind of throwback to the 19th century, when unregulated corporations bulked out their bread with plaster of paris and flavored their beer with sulfuric acid.

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the policy era Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are trying to bring back.

So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction. But is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is.

92 Comments

92 Comments


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

ryan REQUIRES all of his staff to read ayn rand
this budget is a totally logical extension of rand
I would require that they google "ayn rand william hickman"
and try not to throw up

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

how about obamasbudget,.................no democrat voted for it,....not even nancy.

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

OK- you caught me - I was not commenting on ryan's insane budget -
I was commenting on ryan's insane philosophy

did you have the courage to read about "ayn rand william hickman"
did you like what you read about ayn's hero ?

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

0-414 vote: House clobbers budget proposal ?

Only House members can propose a budget.
Last time I checked, Obama is not a member of the House of Representatives.
Last time I checked, only an idiot could have proposed this bomb.
OOPS!
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the REPUBLICAN sponsor of the budget, claimed he was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics.
On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's budget proposal.
Mulvaney seemed to relish the idea of bringing up a proposal supposedly based on Obama's numbers, and openly wondered, tongue-in-cheek, why no Democrats sought to introduce it.
He then criticized what he proposed by saying it does not foresee a balanced budget at any point in the future.
Mick - you are a vey funny boy !

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obama submitted a budget,..............414 congressmen voted against ,..................

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Worse than googling Santorum?

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

Young Turks reports religious leaders are calling Ryan's budget a cruel and immoral disaster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-6tgdqXCo&feature=youtu.be

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

It is NOT immoral
it is amoral amoral adj. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong
which is EXACTLY where ryan's st. ayn is coming from
google " ayn rand william hickman"

[-] 3 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

How about evil, amoral, immoral, ayn-rand-loving narcissistic prick

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

brava!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

These Republicans have finally gone too far for even the . . . to put it diplomatically, tollerant American public, and the backlash against this venal, right-wing slime is just getting underway.

[-] 3 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

i hope you are right - certainly looks that way - with ows in the mix in a big way. it will be a huge fight to get to some sort of reasonable budget - cutting the military and supporting working people - we have our work cut out for us as anyone who deals with the nut jobs on this site knows

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You are right that we have our work cut out for us, but I feel a shifting in the wind.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

no doubt about that - now we will see how far we can push it - big questions for all of us on how to move this forward - seems to me there are problems with those to the left of me as well as to the right of me - and i am pretty far left!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, that's going to be the hard part - coalition building. That's why I'm so concerned about the racial divide getting stirred up right now, and with a Democratic, Black President in the White House no less! It sure seems like an awfully good time for that to happen from the perspective of the status-quo!

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

"to put it diplomatically, tollerant American public"
pardon me for picking on your spelling - mine is tribable
did you leave out an "r" or do you have an extra "l"


I use the less diplomatic "lemmings"

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Sorry, I meant tolerant. I am a terrible speller. I was trying to be diplomatic. Lemmings is much nearer the mark of what I feel. Maybe it's just . . . oh I don't know . . . have you ever heard the expression "against ignorance even the gods struggle in vein."

(And before someone accuses me of it - no, I don't consider myself a god) - it's just a quote from somewhere.

The point is, the war over nothing get's tiresome at times, and by nothing I mean ignorance.

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

we both need a good night's sleep - gods or not

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Good night!

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

I hope you are right but with Emmit Till and the four little girls in the chuch from decades ago, the hatred has been cross breeding and poured into children's minds by their parents, their churches, and their schools.
the lemmings are still marching
If not, how would people like palin and bachman
and cantor
and ryan
and ____
get elected? grover and alec have been brilliantly successful does the name rasputin sound familiar? or goebbels?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Your point is well taken. I think what we must ALL face unflinchingly is the way the people have been divided again and again. Right now it is very clear that the oligarchs and their puppets are working the "divide them by race" strategy overtime,

To understand 'divide and conquer," we must access unfolding events in context of causality.

If all this seems a bit nebulous, it's because there are simply some things that you cannot come right out and say - mostly because you cannot prove them - and what cannot be proven, in some cases, cannot be said.

I will say this though, that if Blacks can be provoked into rioting then Obama will not be re-elected, which is clearly one of the things the oligarchs want most desperately to achieve. That is clear simply from the desperate effort they are making to see to it that he isn't re-elected.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah, we are still waiting on the next OWS movement. The world is moving the other way.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The really sad thing is, this is only one more step toward their ultimate goal, full restoration of the monarchy.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

we agree - my friend (who works on wall street) claims they want to go back to feudalism

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

if you want to get to the heart of this thing, follow the money, by that I mean the trust funds, start looking at who has'em who don't that's what devides us, it makes all the differtence them that have them never know them that don't, through the trust funds the kingdoms are bulit....my friend

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

where is the dems budget? oh yea - it went down 414 - 0 in the house. not one dem voted for it.

[-] 4 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

hey dell - then who put up the budget if nobody voted for it? most people at ows don't give two shits for the dems so what is your point? you didn't know that - oh i see - you are a late comer - well get your ass down to the park when they reoccupy and learn baby learn

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm not going to get up in your face but here's my position, even if the R in your town has done less harm than the D you can’t send, (or let go by voting for someone with no chance), an R to Washington because when they get there they will vote for Boner and all he does.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Morning flip, we agree on a lot but not this, I am so hardcore that I will vote for a dem to get rid of a Republican, whiether I like them or not.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

my wife will vote for obama but i doubt that i will - easy for me since he should win nj without my vote - i for sure favor the dems over the gop but they are both working for the 1% - the dems just less so - no?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That is true, but only part of the truth, it is a little more true to say we all work for the 1%, right now, that's what we are trying to change, if you follow, listen, any man that sits on his back porch and has a beer with a couple guys to iron out some differences then tells me I can't do the same thing with a jay, is a son of a bitch, plain and simple, I'm just trying to kill one monster at a time.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

if i understand you - your main issue is to legalize pot - i am with you here but that would not be the one i start with

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

if i understand you - your main issue is to legalize pot - i am with you here but that would not be the one i start with

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

if i understand you - your main issue is to legalize pot - i am with you here but that would not be the one i start with

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

My main issue is that the moneyed elite, which is mostly bestowed by birthright, is/has taken over our democracy, and the pot laws are a symptom of that disease which I am trying to use as a way of pointing out how the government is working against the people not for them.

If you are referring to this post:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/whats-the-difference-between-a-guard-at-a-concentr/

Then I would refer you to these:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-republicans-serve-a-purpose-in-american-politic/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/healthcare-government-does-it-cheaper/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/

I brought up the pot, after hearing so many newsreaders talk about Trayvon being suspended as if that mattered.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what is your solution?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Mine is get rid of all the Republicans so we can start to fix things, can't do a damn thing with mad dogs running around.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So your faith is in the dems who haven't produced a budget in 3 years and spent all their time passing a healthcare law that will be struck down as unconstitutional in a couple of months. Very productive.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6470) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I save my faith for church, when voting I use my memory, and I remember when Washington was taking in too much money and the Republicans couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. I know there is no reason to “fix” anything till we get rid of the Republicans.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

3rd and 4th parties - real democracy - single payer and tax the rich to start - cut the military by 2/3 and use that money to fund green energy and infrastructure - our crumbling roads and water systems are looming problems. should i go on?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Flip, you must not be that smart. Natural gas is now at $25 a barrel. Do you understand what that means? Green energy, come on.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

does your car run on nat gas - you moron - that kind of thinking is what will sink us all - and we will sink - like most fools on the titanic you are rearanging the deck chairs

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so basicaly ows wants to scrap the whole system & start over. basically wasting your time. a third party sounds good - how's that going?

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

i do not speak for ows - just in case you didn't know

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

no accountability - nicely played

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

you are annoyed that i do not want to say i speak for ows then you really haven't been paying attention. i told you what i think and that is your response - moron

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

name calling certainly helps support your argument.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

you asked what my solution was and i responded - your response was - "so basicaly ows wants to scrap the whole system & start over. basically wasting your time. a third party sounds good - how's that going? - and then- "no accountability - nicely played" - well sorry to hurt your feelings but if the shoe fits......and what is your argument - moron

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

I hear you without a leader we may never fully actualize.

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Where exactly is the Democratic budget? can you point to ANY completed Democratic budget? Binary quedtion, yes or no?

[-] 6 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

This crap isn't a budget, it's a campaign statement. He's basically saying that he's willing to slash tax rates on corporations and the wealthy yet again, will take most of the difference out of programs that exist to support those who can't support themselves, and even then he's going to have to come up with specific loopholes and breaks worth a ridiculous amount of money in order just to make ends meet.

He's basically taking $5.3 trillion out of our coffers in reduced taxes and yet only cutting $2 trillion in spending, so he's not even cutting the deficit. In the end, he's massively redistributing wealth upward and most likely running up the deficit all at the same time. In answer to your question, there isn't a Democratic budget yet, but I'd rather have none at all than see the Ryan budget go through.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

as of april 1st, the usa has the highest corporate tax rate. what an enticement for foreign companies to do business here,

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I have two things to say to you. One, see what I had to say to Dell about nominal vs. effective tax rates. Basically, only the latter actually matters and the latter is effectively zero or less for many large corporations with sufficiently well-funded legal and accounting departments, GE being the biggest example of this.Thus, the fairly high nominal rate is misleading because most larger corporations pay far less than that. I don't care whose fault that is, but the fact of the matter is that if you're a corporation of a certain size America has gone beyond putting out the welcome mat and taken the extra step of becoming one.

Two, foreign investment may be nice but as far as I'm concerned it's sub-optimal. We need to make a strong, concerted effort to rebuild a fully self-supporting domestic economy, and that means growing a cadre of American firms (not multinational but American) companies that source raw materials from the US where possible, do business in the US with American(again, not multinational) backing, and primarily serve the American domestic market (although the more they can export the better). If we need foreign money here and there to get ourselves back on our feet then we shouldn't turn up our nose at it, but treating foreign investment as the panacaea for our unemployment woes is naive and unsustainable at best.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

we just became the country with the highest corporate tax rate @ 39.2% since Japan just lowered theirs. congratulations.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

First of all, that's the highest nominal rate, not the highest effective rate, and that's a big damn difference. Corporations only actually pay the effective rate if they are allowed absolutely zero deductions, charitable or otherwise. Our effective corporate tax rate is definitively something far lower than 39.2%, and if we were able to bring the effective rate more in line with the nominal rate it would probably do wonders for the deficit.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yes of course. loopholes to the well connected. So lets lower the rate & get rid of the loopholes.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Let's just ditch the loopholes and see if we can pay our bills with 39.2% effective rates on corporate taxes and top-bracket short-term capital gains. If so, then maybe we can consider lowering a few of the rates. If not, then further revenue increases should be on the table until we can reliably balance the budget.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha! great job killing idea lol! The opposite of what works in reality once again. you want 40% off the top on corp profits, then another 40% on the individual then 30 - 40% on cap gains. Gee - maybe I'll just sit on my capital or invest overseas. Why take risks if the govt is going to confiscate 1/2 my money. No Thanks.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

We had 91% nominal and 50-60% effective rates in this country for over twenty years after the Great Depression, and between that and the healthy balance between public and private sectors in the American economy we hit levels prosperity that we haven't seen since, and the fruits of that prosperity were distributed and reinvested in a manner that bolstered both our economy and our country. The only people out there shortsighted enough to dismiss that was a fringe group of oil millionaires out in Texas, and considering what happened when we let their philosophy govern our policy I'd say it's about damn time we switch back.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Are you kidding, you want to go back to the high unemployment, high infaltion of the 70's? How old are you, do you even know your economics. Do you know what is happening in the rest of the world? What is Germany doing right now? How about Sweden?

This I have to hear, the 70's were a great decade? Go ahead.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea go for it - see how 91% works today lol! Genius

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

It was good enough for FDR, it was good enough for Truman, it was good enough for Eisenhower, and it's good enough for me. Besides, given the current climate in the House I'm going to get as far arguing for a 110% nominal rate as I am for anything reasonable. All snarking aside, Ryan's budget is a joke, and more scary than funny once you actually sit down and think about it. Our effective tax rates are already laughably low once you hit the higher income brackets; I see no reason why we shouldn't return them to more reasonable levels rather than giving away even more money we don't have.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so how does that help? explain to me how high taxes improve the economy.

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 2 years ago

Dell is one of those new multipurpose office footstools. On the command of management, he will not only get on his knees, but also open his mouth to receive their genitals.

Who believes in that dribble anymore "the wealthy employ more if you cut their taxes". Nothing more than a myth.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

really? you only need to go to recent history to see evidence. Notice hoe Canada has not suffered the same sluggish recovery as us - they slashed their taxes and are recovering better than us. But - go ahead - we can continue to try your way. Hows that going ?

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 2 years ago

"Notice hoe Canada has not suffered the same sluggish recovery as us - they slashed their taxes and are recovering better than us. But - go ahead - we can continue to try your way. Hows that going ?"

Notice how Bush Tax cuts are still in effect but we are still facing the same sluggish recovery. But go ahead, we can continue to try your way. Hows that going???

The dribble that comes out of corporate lapdogs. I sure hope the 1% compensate you well for doing such a nice job sucking their dicks.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Canada cut taxes & recovers better than the U.S. how is that a case for expiring the Bush tax cuts? The name calling is immature & unproductive. Question - How do higher taxes improve economic growth?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Most Federal taxes are unnecessary.

The FED needs to go, but not for the reasons the libe(R)tarians are telling you.

Read 'em, know 'em and weep.

http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

In this view, the rich still get to be just as rich, but the rest us can have some breathing room too.

We hurt, because of how the powers that be look at macro economics.

It ain't yer Mom's checkbook.

[+] -4 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

So what you are admitting is that the Democratic leadership refuses to do its job. You are the typical occuturd. Why arent you demanding an honest budget from the President. Its his fucking job!

[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

What I'm saying is that the Ryan budget is everything we don't need right now; it jacks up the deficit while at the same time slashing private-sector demand and throwing our poorest and our sickest onto the street to fend for themselves. Obama sent in budgets to the House every year he's been president, including this one. The ones for 2009 and 2010 didn't go through because the House didn't want to deal with them (and I'm willing to admit that was the fault of the Democratic House leadership) but the ball's been in Ryan's court since last year, and both times he's chosen to submit reactionary tripe rather than an actual budget, which as far as I'm concerned is worse than not having one at all.

[+] -4 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Again, where us the democratic alternative? Ryan at least crafted something. He put himself open to critics, fair enough, but there is nothing to even discuss in the Demo budget because they are chickenshit cowards.

[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Obama submitted a budget and the House happily threw it in the cylindrical file as soon as it arrived. That's not cowardice on the part of the president or the Democrats; that's the House deciding it would rather have an election-year pissing contest than actually buckle down and do its job.

[-] 3 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

prepare for the revolution

All revolutions start with one overlooked spark of anger. The government that is stealing from the poor to give to the rick ends up without heads. It was only a few years ago when we watched the divine ruler get his head cut off after we gave him back to his country.

The political officials that are stealing from us are not just doing it through taxes on us.

Reduction in labor. Look for a new job and find out what the current pay scale is.

Reduction in benefits. When was the last time your insurance company copay went down.

Gas prices

It not a Dem or Rep thing. It is a Dem and Rep Thing.

We need to act and vote out the crooks before they vote to restrict our rights.

We need to act before violence becomes the answer.

When a revolution happens the soldiers they pay to keep us in order run up against their own families and join the cause.

Right now Occupy is the passive movement.

The next group might be less cordial.

We have to stop it now to save the future. Please put together our own representatives and vote for them. Set up a political guide for them and make them sign a pledge of termination of office if they don't keep it.

We have to get the corporate backed people out now.

They will continue to steal and use our police against us just with less restraint. The acts of violence has grown against the passive OWS to the point of criminal acts. They hide their badges, restrict news crews, and pass laws at night to evict us tomorrow.

I know that this is based on a non political movement. Its now time to change that and become an effective movement. They will stop the movement but a 3rd party for the people cant be stopped. As soon a blocks of voters start being accounted for then we will have the power.

A voter registeration for OWS needs to be formed. Then vote and confirm your vote with OWS.

In most elections state wide we could make a difference now. 2 or 3 thousand votes in state elections would change the winner. We need to study were we could swing the vote and occupy the area until we win. In NY start at small city and district levels with the movement of new officials.

We can make a difference now.

With a revolutionary idea comes responsibility. It is the job of OWS to evolve to real power.

[-] 4 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I agree that we need to start looking at the 2012 and 2014 election cycles. 2012 is coming up way too soon, and I'm not particularly happy with the fact that we haven't started moving on that already. For the most part, we should be working alongside and providing support and publicity for the 99% Declaration in the hopes of developing a document that we can use as our own Contract with America in the hopes of making it a litmus test for politicians running on the state and national levels. If we release the thing in 2012, then it will most likely have little effect until 2014. Generally speaking, you get about half the turnout in off-year elections that you would during a presidential election year, which means that any group that can get warm bodies in voting booths has a seriously disproportionate degree of say in who actually gets elected. That's even more true on the primary level, but if we want to take advantage of it we need to look at how quickly we can get funds and from where so that we can be prepared.

Come 2014, we need to pick races in which nobody really likes the incumbent much and try to find challenger candidates several months in advance (say, January or February) so we have time to set them up properly with a strong campaign staff (if there's one thing this movement has it's activists by the ton so as far as I'm concerned that should be the easy part) and a fairly strong source of funds, with all of this support being contingent on adherence to 85% or more of the content of the 99% Declaration.

Once we have our people, we're going to have our work cut out for us running the campaign for them. Ad blitzes, door-to-door campaigns, money bombs, push polls, the works. Trying to run a non-corporate campaign with crowdsourced funds from small donors is hard as hell, but if the Paulites can do it, then I'm pretty sure we'll be able to as well (if we're willing to work both hard and smart to see this through). In order to make this work, we're also most likely going to have to rebrand the movement. "Occupy Wall Street" worked really well in the first month or so when coming out against rampant abuses by financiers was all we had to do. By now the whole world knows what we're against but now we have to figure out what we're for. The answer is sitting right in front of us: the 99 percent (slogan-wise, at least). If we become the "Defenders of the 99 Percent" then we have something less tainted to build an ethos around than the images of the tent city in Zucotti Park.

There are simple things that we could start doing now to turn our image around and pull this movement back into the field of view of most of mainstream America. First off, set up a PR workgroup composed of sober, articulate, clean-cut moderates who are capable of appealing to people fairly far outside our standard political and socioeconomic demographics to convince them to vote for people we trust. Shell out a few hundred bucks on a suit and tie and get them some public speaking lessons and see how many talk shows you can get them on.

While we're at it, we're going to need to start coordinating and planning protests and rallies better. People shouldn't be getting notifications on here about "Occupy this!" or "Demand that!" two or three days before the event in question is supposed to happen. We need to pick a few big events at least three or four weeks in advance and go out of our way to hunt down people, organize rallies, clean ourselves up, and once we're actually out on the street avoid unnecessary trouble with LEOs. That means for God's sake, someone keep the goddamn black bloc out of anything we do. We should be prepared to put our best face out there and our best foot forward, and we should be looking for unity and discipline when we go out there.

[-] 2 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

Occupy the Vote

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

"We need to pick a few big events at least three or four weeks in advance and go out of our way to hunt down people, organize rallies, clean ourselves up, and once we're actually out on the street avoid unnecessary trouble with LEOs."

Just wanted to chime in here and say that I'm happy with the organization behind the May 1st general strike. We need more long-term planning like what is going into that event.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I'm actually looking forward to May 1st; it's been in the works for quite a while and the measure of what OWS can come up with will tell me a great deal about where this thing is headed.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Could that have anything to do with it de facto nationalizing the entire economy or maybe D's and R's unsatisfied with their cut of graft from it?

Keep in mind that the house is controlled by democrats, I was pretty sure you were much more intelligent than to imply the other party tossed it.

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

It's not really a question of whether I'm willing to admit that House Democrats punted the budget for two years (2009 and 2010) because that appears to be fact. However, I think we can all agree that punting the budget (or in this case submitting what amounts to a troll budget) is reprehensible no matter who does it. I'm not inclined to get angry at the HoR Democratic leadership of the time for that right now (although had I known about it then I would have been less than pleased) because we got through those two years OK in the end. That said, submitting a troll budget the way Ryan just did is actually worse than punting the budget because the latter leaves at least some possibility that the next year will go fairly well, whereas if the troll budget actually gets passed somehow we're screwed for sure.

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Another occuturd. It is cowardice not to propse a budget. That way nothing can be critiqued. Paul Ryan is heroic, he at least something to paper, where is could be debated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-budget-games/2012/02/13/gIQA3JVxBR_story.html

Obama punted like the chickenshit coward he is. Even the liberal Washington Post sees he fraudulence.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Obama sent a budget to the House that raised the deficit by $2.7 trillion per year less than the Ryan plan, making a large number of cuts or complete closures of a whole lot of the backwater "forgotten programs" that Republicans love to trot out (as well as a few things that would be nice to have but we can't necessarily afford right now) when they want to complain about how unwieldy government is. He's basically trying to balance the need for spending control and revenue increases with the need to stimulate the economy to get the recovery actually looking like one. It's still a far better budget than Ryan's.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obama submitted a budget,............ not one dem voted for it,.not even little nancy.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

i am not fan of the democratic party so you need to ask someone else your binary question - if you would like to point out where the post is incorrect i would be interested to read the response

[-] 2 points by Recycleman (102) 2 years ago

Ironically they just raised the taxes on the 99% The Fed Gov gets a percent of taxes on every gallon of gas. Your taxes just went up. So they targeted the 99 percent to raise money. The deficit will correct itself with enough taxes being raised. When the taxes lower the deficit, will the Republicans still blame Obama for the increase of taxes or say their flawed budget made the difference. everyone's personal living expenses just went up. Every extra dollar for gas comes out of your personal food or extra budget category.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

military takes 54% of all tax dollars - until we get a handle on that we will have no real security (see ikes farewell address on that subject)- energy is a big problem and will only get worse- lots of shit coming down the road and we are not ready for it - neither party wants to face the facts. since we print dollars i am not too concerned with the debt - those that hold the debt should be (the chinese and the rich everywhere) - resource scarcity is going to make the world a different place n a few short years i am afraid!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Another occuturd liar. 54%? Prove it.

The DOD budget was $690 billion. The federal budget is 3.1 trillion. Why do you always lie?

[-] 3 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

sorry that you do not understand but no need to name call simply because you have been brainwashed. first of all social security is not part of the budget - the info is here - President Johnson created the ‘unified budget’ in the late 1960s to disguise the real cost of the Vietnam War.[6] [7] President Johnson did not want to ask for income tax increases to pay for several ambitious government programs of that era (the Vietnam War, the Great Society War on Poverty, the NASA Space Race). Putting surpluses from Social Security overwithholding “on budget” (adding them to the general operating budget of the United States Government) so the overwithholding could be used to pay for other government programs would make the federal budget appear balanced. The resulting debt to Trust Funds would be presented “off budget.” secondly there are many parts of the military budget that are actually presented in other places - nuclear weapons are under the energy dept - coast guard in transportation - i could go on but you can find out all of it if you like but i know you don't want to know the truth - you want to promote you agenda - or that of your employers - isn't that the truth??

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Prove the 54% claim you made. Oh I know, it wss just another of your lies.

Whipped your libturd ass again.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

thought i just did - do some of your own research - you can't handle the truth!

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

So you lied. Again. total up all the military spending and see if its 54%, or wear the mantle of occutard liar proudly.

You said it takes 54% of ALL tax dollars. Prove or shut up. Now you start waffling about FICA when your lies are exposed.

[-] 2 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

oh you sad little shit - no good at math - check out the war resistors league - do i have to do everything for you - are you capable of nothing - well with a name like doofi why am i surprised

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

here are the numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Defense is responsible for between 19-24% of all expenditures.

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 2 years ago

Clearly you cant provide numbers. So unless you provide numbers, remember this is your claim, you lied.

[-] 1 points by flip (7174) 2 years ago

since you are too stupid to do thework yourself - here it is - the website will not allow charts so go to war resistors league yourself - are you capable of at least that? the current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).

Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

Are We Safe Yet?

s -