#OccupyWallstreet

[JSt0rm]

yeah best to downplay ows. Because telling all 50 people in here is really gonna show the ows crowd they are nothing.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have not been in the city much, have you?

This ain't central park. For 200-300 people to be in a park that size is pretty significant. It is also notable for its duration (as pointed out in other areas where rain is enough to drive away "devoted" protesters)

Lots of protesters have rotated in & out over time. Most have jobs & responsibilities, apparently. It's impossible to estimate with any accuracy, but I'm sure thousands have participated.

The beauty of it all, so far, is that it just won't go away, withstands repeated smear campaigns, and just seems to gain favor along the way.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish I could go see the OWS in NYC for myself. I keep hearing from sources there's only about 200-300 people, not counting the press and gawkers/tourists.

If so, I don't see the big deal.

Fern

There is a constant presence of a few hundred people in the park, that's really all that can fit there anyway. (and the cops wouldn't allow overspill)

When they hold events, which they do several times a week, the protests swell into thousands of people. I was at the occupy times square event on Saturday and I saw press estimates of 10-20,000 people if not more.

 

[ComradeBeck]

One thing about the Left, they are damn slow to organize since they have so many things to fight the elites for, but when the organization ball gets rolling there is only one outcome.

 

[Craig234]

So some of the 1% are OK as long as they admit they're the 1% and benefit enormously from the idiots that watch them, as long as they're articulate, as long as they're educated, as long as they're kinda funny and as long as they have a least a little, itty, bitty, tiny kernel of truth in what they say. How cool is that ! I bet that 99% of the 1% are breathing much easier now. Don't you feel like the least bit of a hypocrite that you so staunchly defend some of the members of the 1%? As long as they're PC of course.

You're being an idiot. If a wealthy person supports good policy, you have a problem with that.

 

[palehorse]

You're being an idiot. If a wealthy person supports good policy, you have a problem with that.

I'd be very interested to hear his opinions if/when 40+% of his wealth and annual income gets confiscated... The same holds true for any of the far left personalities who support OWS and are easily in "the 1%."

I say it's time we call them on it and see how fast they run away from OWS.

"Hello Mr. Stewart, we're with the Government and we're here to take half your money. We'll be back every year for the same, so please plan accordingly..."

 

[JSt0rm]

I'd be very interested to hear his opinions if/when 40+% of his wealth and annual income gets confiscated... The same holds true for any of the far left personalities who support OWS and are easily in "the 1%."

I say it's time we call them on it and see how fast they run away from OWS...

"Hello Mr. Stewart, we're with the Government and we're here to take half your money. We'll be back every year for the same, so please plan accordingly..."

i have never heard anyone say they want to confiscate 40% of peoples wealth. Thats the kind of paranoia that sends you out in the forest to collect nuts.

 

[palehorse]

i have never heard anyone say they want to confiscate 40% of peoples wealth. Thats the kind of paranoia that sends you out in the forest to collect nuts.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to many of the tax proposals being put forth by OWS. Hell, even the Admin itself is attempting to push capital gains taxes that high, or higher, for the 1%.

What do you think Mr. Stewart, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Oprah, Oliver Stone, and others do with their tens and hundreds of millions? Oh yeah, that's right, they invest it...

 

[Craig234]

I'd be very interested to hear his opinions if/when 40+% of his wealth and annual income gets confiscated... The same holds true for any of the far left personalities who support OWS and are easily in "the 1%."

I say it's time we call them on it and see how fast they run away from OWS.

"Hello Mr. Stewart, we're with the Government and we're here to take half your money. We'll be back every year for the same, so please plan accordingly..."

I agree with you.

It's time we do it. And they won't 'run away from OWS'. You're clueless about it.

 

[Craig234]

You obviously haven't been paying attention to many of the tax proposals being put forth by OWS. Hell, even the Admin itself is attempting to push capital gains taxes that high, or higher, for the 1%.

What do you think Mr. Stewart, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Oprah, Oliver Stone, and others do with their tens and hundreds of millions? Oh yeah, that's right, they invest it...

You're babbling.

 

[JSt0rm]

You obviously haven't been paying attention to many of the tax proposals being put forth by OWS. Hell, even the Admin itself is attempting to push capital gains taxes that high, or higher, for the 1%.

What do you think Mr. Stewart, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Oprah, Oliver Stone, and others do with their tens and hundreds of millions? Oh yeah, that's right, they invest it...

How does taxing income have anything to do with confiscating 40% of peoples wealth? You need to learn the difference between these 2 words. No wonder you are so scared of the world.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Definition_of_wealth

Definition of wealth

Wealth is a person's net worth, expressed as:
wealth = assets − liabilities
The word "wealth" is often confused with "income". These two terms describe different but related things. Wealth consists of those items of economic value that an individual owns, while income is an inflow of items of economic value. (See Stock and flow.) The relation between wealth, income, and expenses is:
change of wealth = income − expense
A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is substantially different from the distribution of wealth. According to the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, "the world distribution of wealth is much more unequal than that of income."[1]
If an individual has a large income but also large expenses, his wealth could be small or even negative.

 

[monovillage]

You're being an idiot. If a wealthy person supports good policy, you have a problem with that.

I just have a problem with not only OWS, but many other movements that demonize a group, but celebrate people of that same group that cough up the right payola.

 

[Craig234]

I just have a problem with not only OWS, but many other movements that demonize a group, but celebrate people of that same group that cough up the right payola.

And I think you're an idiot. I don't mean that badly, I wish you well, but it is what it is.

I guess if you say you agree with a robber who stops robbing, you're doing it for 'payola'.

 

[monovillage]

How does taxing income have anything to do with confiscating 40% of peoples wealth? You need to learn the difference between these 2 words. No wonder you are so scared of the world.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#Definition_of_wealth

Definition of wealth

Wealth is a person's net worth, expressed as:
wealth = assets − liabilities
The word "wealth" is often confused with "income". These two terms describe different but related things. Wealth consists of those items of economic value that an individual owns, while income is an inflow of items of economic value. (See Stock and flow.) The relation between wealth, income, and expenses is:
change of wealth = income − expense
A common mistake made by people embarking on a research project to determine the distribution of wealth is to use statistical data of income to describe the distribution of wealth. The distribution of income is substantially different from the distribution of wealth. According to the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, "the world distribution of wealth is much more unequal than that of income."[1]
If an individual has a large income but also large expenses, his wealth could be small or even negative.

""What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

 

[monovillage]

And I think you're an idiot. I don't mean that badly, I wish you well, but it is what it is.

I guess if you say you agree with a robber who stops robbing, you're doing it for 'payola'.

In that case it's called "protection". I think you're an idiot also, but i like that you work so hard on what you believe.

 

[palehorse]

I agree with you.

It's time we do it. And they won't 'run away from OWS'. You're clueless about it.

You don't get it. My idea is to only do the above to those in the 1% who supposedly support OWS. I'd like to test their conviction and see how they react to the subsequent fleecing.

I wonder how many of them pay extra taxes every year. There is a box on the 1040 for that very reason. My guess is that they leave it blank.

You guys do realize that most of those personalities compound their wealth using many of the same methods as bankers, right?

 

[JSt0rm]

yeah dude the top 1% is rocking 1040's lmao.

 

[Bowfinger]

Seriously, he's not so much "fringe" rather he enjoys pissing you guys off. Sure you all can say he doesn't piss you off, but it really is funny to read everyone's responses to him.

Seriously? You don't find comments like, "I'm just waiting for them to get violent so I can go hunting" come from the fringe? That might make me question whether you're out there with him, but I know from your posting history that you enjoy trolling just to piss people off.

Spidey, on the other hand, appears literally, clinically deranged. Maybe some righties take him seriously, but you're few and far between. Most of us see him as entertaining and a bit pathetic, an irrational crackpot whose posts deserve mockery, not anger.

It's funny that you (collectively) can't seem to tell the difference between mockery and anger. I've seen that comment so many times, "Oh look how mad they are" when we start making fun of especially bizarre or ignorant comments. Maybe that's a coping mechanism to save face since you want to believe some of those crazy claims. Maybe it's just that sarcasm is hard for some to grasp in written English. Whatever the case may be, you're wrong.

 

[bfdd]

One thing about the Left, they are damn slow to organize since they have so many things to fight the elites for, but when the organization ball gets rolling there is only one outcome.

lol like you authoritarians are any better. pot kettle etc etc, tool.

 

[bfdd]

You don't get it. My idea is to only do the above to those in the 1% who supposedly support OWS. I'd like to test their conviction and see how they react to the subsequent fleecing.

I wonder how many of them pay extra taxes every year. There is a box on the 1040 for that very reason. My guess is that they leave it blank.

You guys do realize that most of those personalities compound their wealth using many of the same methods as bankers, right?

Why don't they just do it anyways? Everyone can fairly donate more money to charities, setup their own charities, pay more in taxes if they so choose. Why don't they just do it, why do they feel the need to force others? Is this not the same argument we use for abortion? marijuana? gun control? religion? Same thing, different subject with different arbitrary guidelines. They do not care for equality or even keep an open mind. They want the world molded in their sheltered little vision of it.

 

[Darwin333]

the reason student loans cant be discharged in bankruptcy is because in the past every college grad with loans with go bankrupt the second they finished school.

I sure would have if I had the option. Whats a few years of no credit for tens of thosands of dollars.

The no bankruptcy for student loans IMHO is to harash right now. But there are reasons for them.

That holds true for all unsecured loans, why exactly are student loans special? Why isn't CC debt immune from bankruptcy since, at least going by your assertion, anyone who gets a sizable CC limit will run them up and go bankrupt?

OTOH, I bet banks would take a hard look at loaning someone 6 figures to get an education that will land them a $30K a year job.

An even better question is might this be one of the reasons why higher education costs so much these days?

 

[Bowfinger]

I'd be very interested to hear his opinions if/when 40+% of his wealth and annual income gets confiscated... The same holds true for any of the far left personalities who support OWS and are easily in "the 1%."

I say it's time we call them on it and see how fast they run away from OWS.

"Hello Mr. Stewart, we're with the Government and we're here to take half your money. We'll be back every year for the same, so please plan accordingly..."

I think you'd be amazed at the number of Americans who'd be OK with that as long as the same rules were applied to everyone with similar financials. Yes, we have a large faction of this country who are destructively greedy, who care only about what's best for their personal, immediate bottom line. They are "glass is half-empty" sorts who obsess over the portion of "their" pay they don't get rather than the great wealth they do get. They'll fight tooth and nail to avoid paying even one extra dime of taxes, no matter how trivial the impact on them financially.

Others, however, are not driven solely by greed. They recognize that as much as their financial success may be due to their hard work and good decisions, it is also due to the bountiful opportunities offered by America's tremendous physical, financial, and educational infrastructure -- greatly funded by tax dollars. Therefore they are content to return some of that investment, to pay their dues, to celebrate their glass being not just half-full, but also orders of magnitude larger than it would be in those low-tax utopias (i.e., third-world hell holes) so many on the right seem to want America to become.

 

[Darwin333]

yeah dude the top 1% is rocking 1040's lmao.

Probably the 1040EZ, saves them time so they can make more money

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder how many of them pay extra taxes every year. There is a box on the 1040 for that very reason. My guess is that they leave it blank.

This line of argument has been debunked so many times on here it's not even funny. Just because you advocate for collective action does not mean you are compelled to undertake individual action.

 

[JSt0rm]

Probably the 1040EZ, saves them time so they can make more money

heheheh. of course they need to go out and make wealth and trickle down.