Advocating against your own self-interest is kind of crazy any way you slice or dice it, sorry. Left wing cultural movements in general are not about handouts. They are about economic justice, meaning, people that do the work that creates things get some of the benefit. Just because you can screw them out of 90% of it and convince them they have no rights and don't deserve anything better, or some foreigner will do it for less, does that mean you should? In the long run it does not make a harmonious society, and we have just gotten away with these rapacious ideas this long because we are a young society and a young species at that. It is really destructive.

The financial sector of the economy does not contribute nearly as much as people think to the actual amount of stuff getting made and products and services getting to people. Yes I read Chomsky, and yes I would cite him as a source for that belief, but he isn't the only one. People will get wealth however they can get it in a society, and if they can wrap that up in patriotism, intellectual legitimacy, or whatever else to hide the fact that they are stealing money from others, they can, and Do do that. I think people are naive and believe because all kinds of institutions can be made legally and justified in fancy books, they are legitimate. They are not. Physical violence is not the only kind of violence out there. To extend the metaphor, emotional abuse, and other kinds of non physical things can still be violence in a way, both between people and in economics. That's my take and I have not found any reason in years of looking to disagree. Sorry if it sounds like I'm running for something, I'm not, just hoping to clarify or convince people with open minds who might disagree because that does actually happen from time to time and it's a pleasant feeling.

When you get back. youll still be wrong.

LOL.... that is definitely ad hominem attacking but I give it a pass on grounds of good comic timing.

1)The top 1% is only making that high level of wealth due to their relationship with society, it's not like they are on a desert island being 1000x more productive than anyone else. They are not. Plus that money going to things like education and health care actually comes back to them because it keeps the "little people" healthy and around to keep supporting their company, or other source of wealth. It's not redistribution because it's not taxing what they have, which you might argue is strictly "theirs", only what they made, which they made again in relation to society and with the help of the government, courts, social institutions etc.

2)Competition and cooperation are both aspects of human nature and they can be encouraged or discouraged by culture training values and other things. Arguments about what is inherent in human nature are shallow and irrelevant, because all of these aspects exist. Furthermore, competition between races and people's is often fostered by whatever ELITE is in control of any society, because that makes the society controllable. It's like bad parenting, where a shallow parent can't make their kids listen to he or she makes them hate each other and always compete for the parents affection, to stay in control.

3) Trade structures and tariffs get designed by the ultra wealthy and corporations because those people and groups have serious pull in the political process and have basically marginalized everyone else. That is not democratic or American as you would probably say.

4) There is no opposition between wanting something cheaply and ethically. There is no reason anyone should ever have to choose between their needs and being ethical.

1.he 1% pays 40% of the income tax in america, people in NY, where the movement started pay near 50% of their total income to taxes!!! they are already subject to an insanely high level of wealth redistribution... should they pay more? Why is that fair? what are other arguments are you referring to? fumy I live in NY have friends who work in financial sector and I don't know anyone who pays 50% of their wages in income taxes. Bonuses are taxed at like 40% rate but IDK what any of this has to do with NY and I'm pretty sure some of that money comes back. As for what other ideas well for one you can start with at least rolling back Bush tax cuts. I'm not naive enough to try to claim that somehow good clinton economy = taxes good. However, I am smart enoguh to realize that lower government revenue equals a broke government and lower taxes= lower government revenue( for the love of god don't start talking to me about Reagan tax revenues.)

3 No as clearly can be demonstrated by the fact that outsourcing is commonplace and jobs are scared away by our economically inefficient minimum wage laws and various other protectionisms yes, minimum wage jobs are the reason for outsourcing........ ironically, i'm sure soon enough most McDonald drive thrus will be outsourced
4. Your examples are poorly chosen. Costco workers have union, drives costs up obviously...bad bad unions. Question, how would these companies do if they weren't passing health care costs onto the federal government due to the low wages they pay? .

I'd rather have 15% of the 6 inch pie.

didnt know about the union issue. costco may be a bad example. Mcdonalds as you pointed out is looking to outsource the drive through window. In general outsourcing is still unbelievably rampant, I don't think that you can argue that it isn't. Especially in tech and manufacturing companies. apple isn't a bad example, nor is dell or anything of that nature.

The NY figure: say you make 1 million a year (typical 1%er)

You are taxed about 1/3 of that federally
about 8% to the state of new york
then i believe (will have to check) about 5-6% to NYC

comes out to around 46-47%. I don't really see an argument for taxing people more than this. And rich people are often productive. Aside from the banksters and bad apple crooks in the finance world obviously, who should be watched far more carefully and punished far more severely for their transgressions.

But in general, wealthy people rock. They often employ many other people (especially when the government allows it to be profitable for them to employ americans without ridiculous protectionist laws), wealth is definitely good for the economy. Who is to say that someone making 1 billion a year in his business couldnt use a few hundred million (that OWS DEMANDS he be taxed) to start another business, employing more people? Hell even small businessmen are 1%er's often enough, so is bill gates the founder of the largest transparent charitable foundation in the world. Rich people are more often than not, very productive and awesome to have in society.

Thats one of my main gripes with OWS. Grouping financial criminals and succesful businessmen into this blanket 1% just because they are rich. WTF. Apples and oranges.

And give me a break about the Bush tax cuts. Did you know that the top 1% paid a higher percent of total income taxes paid at the national level at the end of 2008 than at the end of the clinton adminstration?
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
And its like 3% difference when u take the lower brackets into account (4% top bracket 35-39), far from the reagan years you so vocally despise when they were paying like 27-28% top bracket. I believe in rich people being taxed more than poor, I really do. But the tax cut issue IMO is a drop in the ocean gesture in a nation facing a 15 trillion dollar debt. Fine roll em back, im not even opposed to it as a nation saving measure, but they will just throw the money away. A dimes worth of difference to a million dollar question.

Cool anecdote, bro. Because that one time on your street corner is exactly the same as Occupy Oakland burning stuff and throwing **** at the cops.

Oh.

Like I said, sheep mentality. Some people have the attitude "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide". Well, I have nothing to hide, but I'm NEVER letting a cop search my car, enter my home, ask me for ID. I'll simply refuse. Why? Because they don't own us, and we don't live our lives simply by what they wish us to do.

The occupy people are far from a "problem", and we all know it. They may be a nuisance, but thats about the extent of it. If you paint them as much worse than that, then you're an idiot.

The TEA party guys were really stupid in my opinion, but I respected their right to gather and protest. The failure of this respect for the occupy people really annoys me. So what if they are a bunch of "hippies". Let them exercise their rights, and if they are passionate enough to live out in the street to make their point, then who cares about a damn license. Obviously they have bigger things they believe in, and there's enough of them to respect the fact that they want to make a point.

Also someone said lower tax revenue = broke government.

I don't agree. I can't believe people still think that its a problem of income. The government is raking in literally disgusting amounts of money and squandering it all on a massive scale. Do you really think that just upping taxes will fix this. For god sakes our debt is = to our GDP. How is upping the tax on a handful of top earning people by a FEW PERCENT going to change anything. Are you out of your mind!!!! Are you literally out of your ****ing mind?

Take the PPACA, they have the balls to claim it saves money tax wise. They just tax 1 trillion dollars as part of the act and then claim it helps even out the budget. Im sick of lies. By that standard how about you give me a billion dollars for me to spend on coke parties and raise taxes by two billion? A billion dollars of debt reduction for the US government! Sick of all the lies every damn day.

We need cuts, and lots of them to even consider breaking even. Imagine the nightmare scenario where the US defaults on debt. Highly unlikely I know, we'll inflate the dollar into a penny with QE after QE, but just realize thats what the US is technically facing because of its arrogance and inefficiency.

Abolish the warfare state. Abolish the welfare state. Thats my answer. The bureaucracy is broken and needs to be overhauled. Think 127 hours. If it doesn't hurt like a mother****er were doing it wrong.

Sure, probably most wealthy people made their money by being cool and productive and stuff. However, you are conflating having wealth with creating value.

What I think people should want out of an economic system is for actors to have incentives to create good products and innovate and stuff, and also to be able to make enough money so that most people can get by.

You are attributing good qualities to the wealthy (like they create jobz and stuff!! give them more money then we get more jobs OMG I SOLVED THE ECONOMIEZ!) seemingly just for the fact that they have the money. If more money went to a vagrant instead of a successful businessman the effects on the economy wouldn't be qualitatively different unless we know for sure that the successful businessman will invest the money more wisely. If the businessman buys a yacht with the extra money for example, probably society would have been better off if the money went to a vagrant.

You say that wealth is good for the economy, and what I take you mean by this is that concentrating wealth in a few hands (in capable hands I guess?) is a good thing. I think that the protestors are right in saying that you can't eat money. Allowing the wealthy to accumulate more money (more power basically) by lowering taxes or whatever isn't really going to do anything good for society. I think that they are basically gonna spend it on yachts and vacation houses.

I guess what I am saying is what give you the right to decide how much money is too much for someone to have? They earned it! I have to say for myself that in some cases they are crooks. These people should be punished (wiki angelo mozillo). I mean that.

But it just seems so condescending to look at success and just say, "thats too much now! give it all back." Like I was saying earlier a ton of rich people have billions and billions, this isn't just yacht party money, its money they use to capitalize companies and write paychecks. Or in some cases give to charities like Gates / Buffet. Every dime Buffet makes goes to buying troubled or undervalued companies and keeping them in operation... spending money positively is a very real phenomenon and even if it weren't... who are you to say someone cant just blow it all on yachts and mansions? Isn't this still a free country? Are you in charge of how society should operate

Also think about buying a yacht. You see how that is a good thing right? They had to pay people to get the wood, mold the metal make the sails, install TVs, and build the damn thing. You might have put a million plus into the pockets of working class people right there!

100% debt to GDP isnt unheard of. British debt to America after WW2 was nearly 300% GPD iirc. The idea of cutting everything back and paying it off as quickly as possible would be more damaging to the country than paying it back over a longer time while keeping essential services. Taxing a few more points on the rich helps of course, but crashing the economy through slash and burning the government spending budget would just create an instant depression and likely extend the amount of time required to repay the debt. Economic growth is the key figure.

Of course nothing gives me the right to take away what they have earned. However, I'd like you to consider how it is that we determine what someone has earned.

How is it that you can say that you own land or a natural resource? These things and their derivatives are pretty much the only things you can own. Everyone else in the group (society) says that you own it because we think that you will do something useful with it. If you aren't doing something useful with it, then why the hell should the society let you continue to own it?

In America most people make money by offering a valuable service or product in the marketplace. Some are criminals. Others get their wealth by convincing policy makers to change the laws to their favor. For clarification, both I and these protestors are mostly pissed off about the third kind of earning wealth.

I've tried to understand the whole Occupy Movement and what it stands for/is doing/whatever, but I seem to be consistently missing it. So if I wanted to camp out for a while in a park and try and hook up with decent looking girls, which Occupy locale is the best option?

Alright wil318466 you want some logical reasoning here you go:

1999 (Clinton's surplus):
Revenue (federal): 19.56% of GDP
Gov't Spending (federal): 18.27% of GDP

2006 (Bush):
Revenue (federal): 18.12%
Gov't Spending (federal): 20.05%

2010:
Revenue (federal): 16.19% of GDP
Gov't Spending (federal): 24.16% of GDP

Note: Numbers are subject to year-year fluctuations of course.

The point is the debt is a two-fold problem. We need to find a 'sweet spot'. The Bush Tax Cuts decreased Revenue as a % of GDP by 2% per year subject to variation. However, the burden of Social Programs as well as Stimulus packages have increased Gov't Spending as a % of GDP by 6% per year (and growing).

I concede that the Bush Tax Cuts were very unwise and unnecessary in a growing economy, and running consistent deficits in a growing economy was even more troublesome. I also concede that many of the brightest mainstream economists believe Keynesian style stimulus has kept us out of a deflationary period.

However, my conclusion is that Gov't Spending (predominantly social programs) needs to be reduced more than Revenue needs to be increased. I believe Clinton and the Republican Congress found the 'sweet spot' at ~18-19%.