Forum Post: When will OWS leave?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 5:53 a.m. EST by devilsadvocate
(67)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What changes will inspire OWS to leave and be done with the protests? To be clear; what does OWS hope to accomplish and what will signify success?
My name is Bill Spetticini. I own a profitable sign business. If you want to buy signs call . I lives in America
Criminalization of Credit Default Swaps. It's insurance, and it should be regulated like insurance. B of A is sticking the FDIC with its CDS portfolio by shifting it from Merrill Lynch to its banking division, which means we all get the bill when the counter-parties come calling. And people wonder at the outrage.
When it gets cold and we have the first rain/sleet/snow below 20 Degrees
Reinstatement of Glass Stegal and nationalization of insolvent banks with bond holders being the ones who get stiffed. When did bonds become a specially protected asset class?
The cops will arrest them that's when they'll leave
Income tax parity for earned income, long term capital gains and inherited wealth. The result? Lower marginal rates for all which would lead to greater wealth creation and jobs by entrepreneurs.
When the communist revolutionarys are in power oh wait we already have Obama
ha ha ha ha... oh wait are you serious?
I always find it humorous when people say something like Obama is a socialist, when in most other parts of the world america's "liberals" would qualify as, at best, centerists, if not slightly conservative. the CLOSEST any politician comes to being socialist/liberal is Kucinich.
If Obama was a communist, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out but nationalized
OWS is a bunch of violent communists at there core Obama has grabbed on. This is no joke.
stop listening to the MSM. OWS is made up of varying types of people, everything from "anarcho"-capitalists (aka free market libertarians) to 'hard core" communists.
Who are run by unions who buy our politicians just like big business
Seeing changes that we're satisfied will sustainably improve the economic and political situation to cease the extraction of money from the bottom 99% of the wealth gap.
What changes specifically, do you expect millionaires to start donating to your cause?
No we don't want distribution of wealth. We want the tax system to be fair. We want the middleclass who's wages have gone no where for 2 decades, but the rich keep getting richer. We just want a fair society. Everyone wants the American Dream. We want the rich to succeed. We just want the opportunity to have it too.
50% of people don't pay any Federal Income tax, many actually get money back. Fair enough for you?
No. I believe it's different types of income get taxed differently. Most of the middle class don't have any money left over to invest right now. For example Mitt Romney presently pays 14% because his income comes from investments, not sweat. There is just too much of a gap. A fair tax system would solve a lot of problems.
You are referring to the Capital gains rate that is 15%, this is set to increase to 20%+ when the Bush era Tax cuts expire. I agree that the capital gains rate at 15% is too low, but keep in mind that this isn't the whole story. Investments are not guaranteed income, there is a chance that you will loose money you invested, you are not protected on the downside. It is my opinion that this is why it is, and should be, taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income that has no downside or risk of you loosing your money that you invested, money that has already been taxed previously mind you. For example one year you may make a gain but the next year you may loose money on the same investment, you paid taxes when you made money, you don't get the taxes you paid the prior year back when you loose money the following year. Due to this risk it should not be taxed at the full rate.
Additionally Mitt Romney, like most business owners, uses money he makes to grow enterprise and create jobs, every dollar that goes towards taxes is one dollar less that can be used to grow enterprise and create jobs.
So lets say he paid 14% in federal taxes, this is still vastly more percentage wise than the bottom 50% pay in federal taxes, many of whom actually get money back instead of paying in!
As a whole the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of the federal tax burden in 2008. The top 50% paid 97.30%. The top 1%, that is so unfair to everyone else, paid 38.02% of the federal taxes collected in 08.
Source, IRS Website: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
Simplified source: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Just wondering, What jobs has Mitt Romney made with his14% investments in the last 12 months? That is one statement that is frequently made that I do not agree with; taxing the wealthy will only keep them from creating jobs. So how many jobs have been made in the last 10 years from the Bush Tax Cut?. I am not taking sides but I hear that so much but the evidence just isn't there.
So how many jobs have you created?
I can't speak for Mitt Romney, I can speak for myself and my small business. I have created several jobs personally in the past few years because I was able to keep more of the money I made and reinvest it in my business. This has allowed my business to grow faster because I have more capital available to invest and I can grow the business and create more jobs.
It really is that simple, if I have to pay more taxes then I have less money to invest and grow my business. $1 more in taxes is $1 less to invest and grow my business.
Also if I have to pay too large of a percentage of my earnings in taxes I will loose my motivation to work 70 hours a week and grow my business, there comes a time when I would rather spend that time with family or watching TV because it's not worth my time for me to exceed.
You are changing the subject here, you said that there is a large gap in the tax burden, the statistics from the IRS I quoted show that this is not the case.
I just told you the result we expect. If you're looking for specific on the methodology we want employed, there are no answers. For now we protest until things get better.
Then you will protest forever, or until you get tired. I'm not looking for "methodology" i'm looking for an answer to the obvious question that you should all be asking yourselves; what are you fighting for, and when will you know that you've won. The goal: "Seeing changes that we're satisfied will sustainably improve the economic and political situation" , is too general and will accomplish nothing since it's immeasurable and is basically an answer of someone who is ignorant of their own cause.
I'm sorry you feel that way. People in over 1,000 cities have started protesting with only this as their motivation, including a gathering of over 5,000 in Times Square last weekend.
You could insist on operating based on your own preconceptions of what criteria must be met in order to qualify as a valid protest, or you can re-evaluate your mindset based on the fact that so many are on board. I can't force you.
How does the fact that so many are involved mean that OWS knows what it wants? How can you protest when you don't know what you hope to accomplish?
"How can you protest when you don't know what you hope to accomplish?"
I told you what we want to accomplish. Here's the long-winded version:
We're hoping to feel that an obvious, drastic, positive, and undeniable change is happening. Focusing on the specifics of how that happens isn't necessarily prudent or even necessarily beneficial. This protest started without detailed demands and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't continue that way. It will continue until changes are put in motion that make us certain that things are getting better.
When you go to the doctor cause your arm hurts, you don't necessarily have a specific demand for what he should do to cure it, but you shouldn't leave him alone til you're satisfied it's getting better.
This is noise and attention that is getting less and less easy for people, including those in power, to ignore. We can, and are, influencing a change, whether those currently in power make the change or they are forced to allow new people to do it.
Some people have a tough time with new ideas. Protests throughout history have included specific demands. Those who are slaves to their own preconceptions either automatically dismiss this one outright merely because it doesn't follow suit, or genuinely lack the ability to wrap their brains around the new concept.
This protest doesn't have a specific demand, but lack of a specific demand doesn't logically demerit the tool of protest. Instead of demanding a particular change, we demand they start changing until we're satisfied that things are getting better.
Labeling the protest in a derogatory fashion doesn't actually speak to this particular protest, but to protest in general. Whether the demand is "we want [x] to be president or else we won't stop" or "make an effort to change things for the better cause we won't stop until they are," you either believe in the method of protest or you don't.
It really is that simple.
NEVER!!!
Permanent Revolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution
We will leave when we get jobs. That is what we want.
You won't find a job sitting in a park all day not looking presentable..
How can you get a job when your at wall street protesting?
Well, we will be starting a career clinic to help people find jobs and learning networking skills and the like.
It really is that simple. What do you hope to achieve?
not really that simple. ows will be active for a bit i'm sure. but once it fades, it will fade into the network that is being born of it right now. http://blog.richardkentgates.com
[Removed]