Photos of the Ninety Nine Percent
People are decent. People care about one another. People want to be happy and enjoy the vibrancy of life. People are willing to work hard for fair wages. People will put up with a certain amount of inconsistency and untruth from their leaders. But there comes a point where you look around and realize that certain greedy elements are taking advantage of your goodness. And it appears that people are fed up with it.
I would not have imagined that the Occupy movement against economic injustice would ever take off. I followed the Anonymous tweets before September 17th skeptically, even cynically. I never thought Americans would rebel, we are a nation of sheep, just comfortable enough to stay home and look the other way even when atrocities are committed in our name. But this movement is big, and it is getting bigger all the time. Even if you don't literally take to the streets, the polls are finding that a gigantic proportion of Americans support the Occupy movement.
The Boston Globe has a really good gallery of photographs of Occupy protests around the world HERE.
Oxnard, California
Times Square, New York
Boston
People from Korea to Greece to Little Rock are waking up to the realization that democracy as it is practiced in the contemporary world has become a scheme to allow the rich to become even richer and more powerful, that selfish corporations have taken over governments through a process of legalized bribery and are destroying the economies and environments of the entire planet. The media are complicit in the scheme but are slowly beginning to cover the movement, which is swelling larger every day. This is going to get interesting.
I would not have imagined that the Occupy movement against economic injustice would ever take off. I followed the Anonymous tweets before September 17th skeptically, even cynically. I never thought Americans would rebel, we are a nation of sheep, just comfortable enough to stay home and look the other way even when atrocities are committed in our name. But this movement is big, and it is getting bigger all the time. Even if you don't literally take to the streets, the polls are finding that a gigantic proportion of Americans support the Occupy movement.
The Boston Globe has a really good gallery of photographs of Occupy protests around the world HERE.
Oxnard, California
Times Square, New York
Boston
People from Korea to Greece to Little Rock are waking up to the realization that democracy as it is practiced in the contemporary world has become a scheme to allow the rich to become even richer and more powerful, that selfish corporations have taken over governments through a process of legalized bribery and are destroying the economies and environments of the entire planet. The media are complicit in the scheme but are slowly beginning to cover the movement, which is swelling larger every day. This is going to get interesting.
posted by JimK at 9:45 AM
83 Comments:
"democracy as it is practiced in the contemporary world has become a scheme to allow the rich to become even richer and more powerful, that selfish corporations have taken over governments through a process of legalized bribery and are destroying the economies and environments of the entire planet. The media are complicit in the scheme but are slowly beginning to cover the movement, which is swelling larger every day"
oh yeah, they're "slowly comin' around"
compare the media coverage of this to the media coverage of the Tea Party and it's obvious who the media sides with
have you ever noticed that the main villain in Hollywood movies and TV shows these days is a businessman?
I watched Bill Clinton recently address this issue and he correctly noted that Americans are generally not resentful of those who succeed- look at the way Steve Jobs is being turned into an icon
the Occupy Wall Street guys probably have some points but what large group of people wouldn't?
economic injustice? where?
all that can be guaranteed is opportunity
there is not a constitutional right to success
a people that aren't free to fail, aren't free
let us know when they have a specific complaint
There is a big difference between people shouting down their elected officials at town hall meetings, making rational discourse impossible, on the one hand, and peaceful protest and discussions about the nature of our problems, on the other.
What is interesting is that while the Tea Party had big money subsidizing it (Dick Armey, etc.), there are no such concentrations of wealth backing the Occupy Movement.
"a specific complaint"? The complaints are very specific: That we as a nation bailed out Wall Street, and in return, Wall Street has gone on strike, sitting on cash and not investing in the country that gave them the opportunity to get rich. And that big money interests have so dominated our political discourse and elections that people not at the very top are getting left behind.
While the complaints are clear, the proposed remedies are, thus far, inchoate. That could be the beauty of the Occupy Movement -- it is sparking discussion about what we need to do to get out of this mess. The mess is complex, and there are no easy answers. This is in contrast to the Tea Party which, in a policy sense, has been a tool of big money.
"There is a big difference between people shouting down their elected officials at town hall meetings, making rational discourse impossible, on the one hand, and peaceful protest and discussions about the nature of our problems, on the other"
man, could it be that the girls and boys are trying to be heard above your noise?
politicians trot out the same trite phrases to push the expansion of taxes, government spending and debt
the Tea Party was demanding to be heard while the politicians were acting like the Tea Party ideas were ridiculous and dismissing them
doesn't sound much different than Occupy Wall Street
"What is interesting is that while the Tea Party had big money subsidizing it (Dick Armey, etc.), there are no such concentrations of wealth backing the Occupy Movement"
well, the media-Obama complex sure has plenty of money and clout to use supporting the protestors
Obama's main argument for every program is that business leaders are bad guys
he's one of them and "runs" the government
"The complaints are very specific: That we as a nation bailed out Wall Street,"
Tea partiers had the same complaint
of course, you complained that the Tea Party were terrorists for threatening not to extend the debt limit because it would destroy the economy
but no such complaints about Occupy Wall Street who would have our major financial institutions c go bankrupt and destroy the economy
isn't that hypocritical?
"and in return, Wall Street has gone on strike, sitting on cash and not investing in the country that gave them the opportunity to get rich"
well, the country gave the Occupy Wall Street folks the same opportunity
why don't they get together and invest in something?
it would be more productive than occuping someone's private property and refusing to let them use it as they wish
and they should clean up since they claim that Wall Street is passing on these great opportunities
Wall Street is rationally trying to conserve for an unknown future of regulation and taxation and government-imposed obligations
they owe it to their shareholders
"And that big money interests have so dominated our political discourse and elections that people not at the very top are getting left behind"
doesn't that happen in every society?
everybody has a voice and an opportunity to be heard but not everyone can be the leader
those who participated in group sports in high school know this
"While the complaints are clear, the proposed remedies are, thus far, inchoate"
that's fer sure
a big step forward would be to leave Wall Street and camp out on Capitol Hill
"That could be the beauty of the Occupy Movement -- it is sparking discussion about what we need to do to get out of this mess. The mess is complex, and there are no easy answers"
see, this is no different than the Tea Party
"This is in contrast to the Tea Party which, in a policy sense, has been a tool of big money"
not really, David
big money has resisted the Tea Party because they are nervous with any type of instability or uncertainty
but, as both the TP and OWS people can tell you, there's no easy way to be free
"in a policy sense"?
so, you think we should design policies to be anti-business?
once we've destroyed business, then what?
these types were around St Petersburg when they saw it was time for a change
how did that work out?
You won't find things like openly displayed guns or renditions of hammers and sickles, Hitler mustaches, or bones through noses at any occupy wall street events. But at tea party events, you will, that is if anybody shows up anymore (2011 Some, but Not Many, Tea Partiers Rally on Capitol Hill).
"Jan 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Nearly 350 right-wing protestors crowded a New Mexico town’s busiest intersection yesterday to protest President Obama’s supposed anti-gun agenda and the “government takeover of our health care system.” While the event mostly looked like any other recent right-wing rally — complete with signs reading “replace the communists in DC” and “the sky is falling! A black man is president!” — what set this protest apart was that there “were plenty of handguns and rifles displayed.”
The local Tea Party and a group called the Second Amendment Task Force (2ATF, a reference to the ATF, which enforces gun laws) encouraged people to bring guns to the event in Alamogordo, NM, in order to “put a positive light on gun ownership,” said 2ATF’s founder Dan Woodruff. While the two protests were technically separate, they were planned together for the same day in adjacent locations. Otero Tea Party Patriots coordinator Don Omey said he was “proud” of the gun-toters. “That’s what we need to turn some minds around,” Omey said. Under New Mexico law, it’s legal for anyone over the age of 19 to open-carry a holstered firearm in most public places.
And while there was no violence during the event, one protestor wearing a Tea Party shirt said his loaded gun was a “very open threat” to anyone who might “try to take over the country completely as a socialist communist [state].”"
For those who doubt the tea party had corporate sponsors, maybe you'll believe David Koch himself:
“Days like today bring to reality the vision of our board of directors, when we founded this organization five years ago," said Koch. “We envisioned a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history.”
It will be interesting to watch this sincere grass roots occupy wall street movement to grow as the tea party's popularity wanes.
NBC/WSJ polling results Oct 6-10, 2011
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/October_Poll.pdf
"Do you consider yourself a supporter of the Tea Party Movement?
Yes.........26% (never higher than 30% since Sept, 2010)
No..........64%
Have you seen, read, or heard the news coverage about sit-ins and rallies in New York CIty and other major cities around the country with people protestiong about the influence Wall Street and corporations have on government?
Yes........80%
No.........19%
If yes, ask:
From what you know about these protests do you tend to support or tend to oppose these protest or do you not have an opinion either way?
Tend to support......37% (already over 30%)
Tend to oppose.......18%
Have no opinion......20%"
"You won't find things like openly displayed guns"
the Tea Party never forcibly occupied someone's private party and refused to leave
they protested in their spare time and spend the rest of their time making their personal contributions to society
"or renditions of hammers and sickles,"
they actually oppose capitalism so I wouldn't be surprised to see this pop up
"Hitler mustaches,"
according to the ADF, there have been many signs at Occupy Wall Street accusing Jews of controlling the banks
they got that little crowd-pleaser right from Hitler's book about how to avoid a boring get together
"or bones through noses at any occupy wall street events"
don't speak too soon
that didn't happen at Tea Party gatherings but who knows what happens when the OWSers drop acid nightly
"But at tea party events, you will, that is if anybody shows up anymore"
having taken over the House of Representatives, they now have other ways to express themselves
I have a feeling no OWSers will landing Wall Street jobs any time soon
"Nearly 350 right-wing protestors crowded a New Mexico town’s busiest intersection yesterday to protest President Obama’s anti-gun agenda and the “government takeover of our health care system.” While the event mostly looked like any other recent right-wing rally — complete with signs reading “replace the communists in DC” and “the sky is falling! A black man is president!”"
could we see some evidence of this sign? persistent slander by the main stream media against the Tea Party has been proven false
several of the Tea Party's favorite politicians are minorities
the charge of racism is scurrilous and a desperate attempt to inflame racial tension for political gain
"what set this protest apart was that there “were plenty of handguns and rifles displayed.”
The local Tea Party and a group called the Second Amendment Task Force (2ATF, a reference to the ATF, which enforces gun laws) encouraged people to bring guns to the event in Alamogordo, NM, in order to “put a positive light on gun ownership,” said 2ATF’s founder Dan Woodruff"
you probably want to find another country if you're looking for gun control
we have a constitutional right to bear arms here
not likely to change
"Otero Tea Party Patriots coordinator Don Omey said he was “proud” of the gun-toters. “That’s what we need to turn some minds around,” Omey said. Under New Mexico law, it’s legal for anyone over the age of 19 to open-carry a holstered firearm in most public places."
how tolerant of them to grant citizens their constitutional rights
"And while there was no violence during the event, one protestor wearing a Tea Party shirt said his loaded gun was a “very open threat” to anyone who might “try to take over the country completely as a socialist communist state"
your response to that would be:
what?
a Gandhi style sit-in?
that's why the founding fathers gave us the rights to arms
we may someday need them to keep our freedom
you do realize that OWS demonstrations in Western Europe have already descended into riots and violence, right?
"For those who doubt the tea party had corporate sponsors, maybe you'll believe David Koch himself"
kind of irrelevant
just like the fact that the OWS movement was started by an anti-American group in Canada, which ran ads and printed posters of a dancer on the Wall Street bull statue, urging everyone to come, and wear some flowers in their hair, is beside the point
OWS at this point has the support of the very powerful and wealthy mainstream media
"It will be interesting to watch this sincere grass roots occupy wall street movement to grow as the tea party's popularity wanes"
well, it won't be all that fascinating watching how fast everyone bores of the whole thing
Clearly "do you support the Tea Party" and do you tend to support those protests are DIFFERENT questions.
They are phrased differently....
I would say that I support the protests because I tend to support anyone who protests for any reason. it is a little nuts that they have been down there so long ... but whatever, hey, it's free country.
did you notice there was a Tea Party flag in the last picture from Boston ?
I think there is some overlap... the Tea Party was also outraged by the Wall Street/TARP bailouts. there are differences between the movements clearly...
however, I disagree that the rich aren't paying their fair share or the income tax rates aren't progressive enough..that said, I think the whole tax code needs to be thrown out and we should start over... and yes we should tap into the trillion dollar underground economy of business that aren't reporting or are underreporting or flat out cheatings. Unfortunately, our IDIOT president who has probably never filled out a tax return in his life (probably had Michelle take care of that) doesn't seem to understand the difference between problems in the tax code and starts hollering for the rates to be raised when Buffet trys to make a point about the tax CODE.
What a dummy.
Obama.
One big ass mistake america.
GO Herman !
you know, if we legalize marajuwana, we could tax it and get that money instead of the Cartel- not to mention the gads we'll save having to house so many less prisoners
now you sound like a Ron Paul supporter... I have been surprised how many of my classic "really really conservative" would have put to the right of me ... are for Ron Paul...
But he is also the one that is like... well.. sure you can smoke, you can do anything you want...
BUT.
you are completely responsible for anything you do ... period and the health stuff and everything else... you are responsible for yourself period... even to the point of abolishing marriage. fixes my tax problem when both can support ourselves, huge tax cut for us.
but kills mom staying at home. I wouldn't wish what I did for years on anyone.
also don't know why any person would support a captain going to war in that case with the immoral society we live in...
so I have some problems with Paul.
though the marijguana is not necessarily one of them.
I support libertarianism to an extent but Ron Paul is nuts
still, I watched the debate tonight and it was scary how often he made sense
I would say Cain and Gingrich looked best tonight
Romney and Perry were embarassing
I like Bachmann but she seems to be getting desperate
Santorum is a real downer- not what we need to get back our confidence
I have some problems with 9-9-9 but I'm still considering it
Cain may be on to something although I don't think we should tax people below a certain level at 9%
but the funny thing about it is, you get the feeling he could work things out
tonight, he said something a politician never says
when asked about his support for TARP, he said he blew it
blew me away
A GOP leader said:
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President."
A GOP Presidential candidate said:
"There are things that you can do to encourage housing. One is, don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up."
Interesting poll finding regarding the GOP:
"In general, do you hope that Barack Obama's policies will succeed, or do you hope that his policies will fail?
Succeed
Total 67%
Dem 92%
Ind 66%
GOP 39%
Fail
Total 25%
Dem 5%
Ind 24%
GOP 51%"
CNN/ORC poll Oct. 14-16, 2011
the question is not specific enough
if you mean spur economic growth by eliminating America's future and making us less free, then we want him to succeed
fortunately, it won't be a problem because his attempt to enforce western Europe style socialism isn't even spurring growth in the short term
even from the perspective of his side, he's incompetent
it's amazing that no one has challenged him within his party
the last time that happened, with Kennedy and Carter, the disastrous incumbent won anyway, so they may think it's pointless
but Hillary doesn't have the baggage Ted had
sorry, guys, let me try again:
the question is not specific enough
if you mean spur economic growth by eliminating America's future and making us less free, then we don't want him to succeed
fortunately, it won't be a problem because his attempt to enforce western Europe style socialism isn't even spurring growth in the short term
even from the perspective of his side, he's incompetent
it's amazing that no one has challenged him within his party
the last time that happened, with Kennedy and Carter, the disastrous incumbent won anyway, so they may think it's pointless
but Hillary doesn't have the baggage Ted had
see, 9/9/9 would get the corporations to pay something as well...
because they also lose all their deductions.
so no more GE paying nothing on a billion.
Curious what he is doing about depreciation deduction etc.
Also assumes that means AMT goest aways...
And I think he is talking about a 35K exclusion non taxable at the bottom.
But at least we won't be sending people checks for 8K at that level....
I don't think I want Romney or Perry, neither of them are talking about major tax code overhaul. That is I believe another position shared between Tea Partiers and the Occupy Wall street folks.
Pass the first responders and teachers portion of The American Jobs Act! We already know federal money "saves or creates" jobs thanks to our neighbors to the south.
"A spokesperson for the [Virginia] Department of Education there tells The Huffington Post that 7,715 teacher jobs have been saved or created because of the money provided by the recovery act. The spokesperson, Julie Grimes, wasn't completely certain whether that total included the $26 billion in additional money that Congress appropriated in an emergency jobs bill passed in August of 2010. News reports around that time indicated that Virginia would receive $246.6 million in federal aid that would save 3,800 teacher positions in the state.
These figures, it should be noted, were provided by the education department of a Republican-run state government. Gov. Bob McDonnell has been a vocal critic of federal spending. But in February of 2010, he along with 46 other governors signed a letter requesting federal "assistance in protecting jobs and speeding economic recovery by extending the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's enhanced federal match for Medicaid (FMAP) for two additional quarters."
One early criticism of the Obama administration's state aid program was that governors were simply using the money they were allocated to fill in budget shortfalls, rather than fund job creation measures. But an administration official confirmed that the funds currently being debated, like the money passed in 2010, has strings attached: it can only be used to hire or retain teachers and first responders. According to a fact sheet distributed by the White House, Virginia could stand to receive more than $425 million in funds, which would support 5,500 jobs, if Congress passes this specific portion of the American Jobs Act."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/obama-bob-mcdonnell-department-of-education_n_1018255.html
Tell your elected officials to pass the first responders and teachers jobs portion of the American Jobs Act, and the rest of it too! Put Americans to work protecting American citizens and teaching America's youth.
states need to pay for teachers out of local funds
we don't need Obama to borrow from the Chinese to pay them
the states just need to prioritize and spend money where its needed
simply giving money to states creates, at best, temporary positions
we need the government to encourage long-term investment
in ongoing profitable activities to grow our economy
"we don't need Obama to borrow from the Chinese to pay them"
Is that what they tell their viewers over at FOX News? Here's what the non-partisan professionals at the Congressional Budget Office who have actually analyzed the bill and its funding mechanisms have to say about it.
"The Congressional Budget Office on Friday confirmed that President Obama’s jobs bill would be fully paid for over ten years and also gave its seal of approval to a Senate Democrat version that includes a surtax on millionaires. […]
CBO also said that the bill “could have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years.”"
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/186307-cbo-obama-jobs-bill-reduces-budget-deficit
and why can't we let each community decide if they want to tax rich people and give the money to teachers?
why throw the Federal government in the middle of it?
you should know that such liberal bastions as Bill Clinton and the Washington Post oppose the millionaire surtax because of the effect it would have on our declining economy
millionaire already pay a much higher rate of tax on their income, even before you account for the fact that much of it is taxed twice
truth is the education depts are wasting money
here in MC, we are on a regular schedule of ripping down perfectly good school buildings and constructing new ones
if you want some extra money for education, endorse school choice
private schools are much more efficient
"Is that what they tell their viewers over at FOX News?"
don't watch FOX News but it's a fact
money is fungible
any amount used for one thing could have used for another
if we increased taxes on millionaires, we could borrow less from the Chinese
if you give it to teachers instead, you are effectively borrowing from the Chinese
I have a better idea.
Let's just pass a federal version of Alabama's law that insist you have to prove that you are here legally in order to enroll your kids in public school.
We would have enough teachers and firefighters if stopped the publich subsidies to folks here illegally.
Anon, you are a hateful moron. That is all.
why do you believe we have an obligation to take tax payer money and use it to provide for people who broke our laws and came here illegally ?
Wanting to see the laws enforced makes you hateful ?
Really ?
I think all the contractors out of work ... most solidly middle class are the most vehement about enforcing immigration laws because they see that it takes their work away. I know this is the case, because I have a contractor I work with that complains all the time. As a matter of fact, many vote Republican because of it... and consider it immoral that the rampant give away of American resources is allowed to continue....
so it's immoral to put LEGAL American citizens out of work by giving their jobs to ILLEGALS....
That's ridiculous. People come here for the opportunities. If they want to work hard and build a better life, then good, I'm happy to have them aboard.
You're just a paranoid racist trying to blame your problems on somebody "different" from you.
Unbelievable.
You are a racist if you want people to be here legally and not break the law.
Typical lib. Don't you realize the gig is up ? this constant behaviour of liberals retorting to personal insults when you can't win on logic is pretty well known now...doesn't make you look good, either.
"People come here for the opportunities. If they want to work hard and build a better life, then good, I'm happy to have them aboard."
I am too, happy to have them aboard, as long as they legally immigrate or get someone to legally sponsor their immigration.
Why do you believe we should encourage and reward people who break our laws ?
With all the problems in the world, how can you be furious about the fact that some people have come to our beautiful country to try to make their lives better? Why don't you concern yourself with your own troubles and let these other people do the best they can? They're not taking anything away from you.
"Wanting to see the laws enforced makes you hateful ?"
it's more complicated than that
anyone who doesn't want to maximize the amount of money we confiscate from hard-working, taxpaying citizens and redistribute to the NEA to develop their latest plan for things like Gay History Month is intrinsically a hateful bigot
it's just so hateful to not want to steal from the middle class and give to the teachers
happiness is a warm apple ballot !!
Get a job, anon.
"They're not taking anything away from you"
OH YES THEY are.
I am paying for them with my taxes taxes and more taxes. Money that I would otherwise be able to use for my kids education.
did you know that we sent 2 billion dollars to illegals who filed for earned income credit using TTIN numbers ?
they can come to our beautiful country legally. then I don't begrudge them at all.
and I think that Just in Maryland the cost of illegal was estimated at 4 billion dollars.
They're paying taxes just like you, moron, and half the time they don't file to get their refund. They aren't taking anything from you, except maybe your grass clippings when they're done with your yard.
"They're paying taxes just like you, moron, and half the time they don't file to get their refund"
so, not only do they come here illegally but half of them don't file their tax return?
most of us would go to prison for that
sounds like the other half aren't paying any tax and getting a "refund" from the earned income credit program, designed to help our own poor
redistribution from our citizens to our citizens for more than a safety net is offensive enough but to the rest of the world as well
no wonder we're going broke
"They aren't taking anything from you, except maybe your grass clippings when they're done with your yard"
oh, and with youth unemployment at record rates, they're keeping the nation's youth from getting started
isn't it hateful to object to this?
Take a deep breath, anon, live and let live. No immigrant is going to take your job away from you, unless you really are in the housekeeping business or do yardwork or farm labor. There are some real problems in the world, why don't you volunteer with some group and try to make the world a better place?
Hey, you could start tomorrow. Make a sign and take the Metro to Freedom Plaza, you can hang out with OccupyDC. "Immigrants Go Home" might not be get a very good reception down there, but what the hay, go ahead and try, see what happens.
I do my own yard, because after figuring out the pre-tax value of the money I would pay to have it done, couldn't justify not doing it myself (and sometimes I just let it look terrible).
And the contractor that does the work I can't do (plumbing, etc) - handyman type guy, white Irish American - vehemently disagrees with you ...says that he used to be paid 35.00 an hour to lay brick 10 years ago and today the GOVERNMENT on public jobs pays 20.00 an hour... and there isn't a white or black person in sight - they are ALL MEXICAN.
Welcome to the free market, anon.
"Take a deep breath, anon, live and let live"
is that what you'll do if someone breaks into your house and steals all your furniture?
how is coming to our country illegally and filing for benefits any different
"No immigrant is going to take your job away from you, unless you really are in the housekeeping business or do yardwork or farm labor"
no, but they're taking them from somebody
"There are some real problems in the world, why don't you volunteer with some group and try to make the world a better place?"
how do you know I don't?
if you're looking for something constructive to do, try the local Tea Party
"Hey, you could start tomorrow. Make a sign and take the Metro to Freedom Plaza, you can hang out with OccupyDC"
wow! I bet that will make the world a better place
encourage resentment instead of getting out there and contributing
let's all protest because someone's a millionaire and it's not us
""Immigrants Go Home" might not be get a very good reception down there,"
personally, I'm fine with us taking as many people as we can absorb
I think it ultimately makes us stronger
but, I don't like seeing you lunatics call my fellow anons "hateful bigots" for having a different opinion
"but what the hay, go ahead and try, see what happens"
hay is for horses
learn to spell
"Welcome to the free market, anon."
Nope that situtation would change immediately if every employer was forced to use Everify or pay a major fine.l
So you want the government to regulate the market.
Your comments are not only hateful, they are uninformed. Americans don't want the job Alabama immigrants are abandoning.
"A new AP report finds that the new Alabama law has caused perhaps hundreds of thousands of so-called immigrants to flee the state.
Farmers are feeling the brunt of it as many have unpicked crops which are rotting on the vine. According to the report:
On Chandler Mountain in north Alabama, tomato farmer Lana Boatwright said only eight of the 48 Hispanic workers she needed for harvest showed up after the law took effect. Those who did were frightened.
“My husband and I take them to the grocery store at night and shop for them because they are afraid they will be arrested,” she said.
Farmer Chad Smith said his family farm stands to lose up to $150,000 because there are not enough workers to pick tomatoes spoiling in the fields.
“We will be lucky to be in business next year,” he said.
The financial toll will vary by area, and experts said it’s too early to make predictions.
…
Builders have complained they can’t find replacement workers and delays in projects are expected. Once the economy picks up and construction returns to normal, the impact will increase, said Russell Davis, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Alabama.
“There is going to be a void. No question,” Davis said.
A group of patriotic Americans showed up to the farm to protest, but oddly opted not to work."
http://www.ournewanahuac.net/alabama-immigrants-flee-law-leave-crops-to-rot/2011/10/07/
"So you want the government to regulate the market."
No I want them to force employers to check the legality of employees applying for positions.
If that is regulation so be it.
As far as the problems with the farmers not being able to find workers.... ask every person getting food stamp assistance if they have applied for that job and ditto for everyone on unemployment over 6 months (which I think shoudl be cancelled period, but whatever). Put up signs in every highschool for weekend work. Put the tomato farmers in touch with the prisons and send the prisoners out to pick the tomatoes...Put the truancy officers in touch with the tomato farmers and if you don't show up for school for two weeks, guess what.....I have LOTS of ideas on how to fix that problem.
Illegal immigrant workers will always be wanted by employers who want to pay their workers less than the minimum wage, and provide no benefits or OSHA protections. This exploitation of farm workers by big corporate farms is one of many concerns of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
As employers in Alabama are finding out, there are not always "white Irish Americans" who are willing to work in such conditions for such low pay.
What's the expected result of Alabama's new law?
" “There won’t be no next growing season,” exclaimed farmer Wayne Smith. “Does America know how much this is going to affect them? They’ll find out when they go to the grocery store. Prices on produce will double.” Although the Alabama law has been contested in court, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn allowed many aspects of the law to go into effect on Thursday. As tensions rise over illegal immigration issues, more and more states are devising their own bills to combat the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. However, there are several immigrants that want to apply for legal status, they may just be afraid to come forward or may not know what to do. If you or a loved one is struggling with any immigration-related problem, seek the help of an immigration attorney right away."
http://immigrationlawyersnow.org/alabama-senator-defends-immigration-law-despite-farmer-complaints
You didn't address my idea ....
Do you have a problem with making prisoners work ?
Simply bring back chaining prisoners together and send them out that way to pick crops. You could probably do this with very light weight materials these days.
Followed by guards with guns. Or better yet, ankle bracelets with an automatic stun.
Why should hard working Americans who have not committed crimes pay to feed them ? they should be forced to work for their keep and others....
There you go, crop problem solved.
And if the illegals don't leave on their own after the jobs are gone, send the prisoners down to the border to build the wall.
and by the way, if you cut off aid, you have no idea how many people might be willing to go to work...
because then you would treating american citizens as guess what ... illegals forced to work for a living...
I did some research trying to figure out how much of the federal budget was spent on welfare aid....
the numbers are staggering, and there are several different depts that provide aid making it of course RIPE for fraud....
the numbers are amazing....
did you know ?
776 billion between food stamps, child insurance, and other govt poverty programs in 2010 including unemployment, or about 1/4 of the national budget.... in assistance handed out because folks "apparently" can't find work.... everyone UNIVERSALLY has disagreed with the long term unemployment benefits... do you agree with them ?
I mean seriously ?
1/4 of the national budget dedicated to poverty benefits ? w/O getting ANYTHING from these folks in return ?
why don't we find some creative way of putting these folks to work ?
If they are moms than they can work in day care centers (and bring their kids) etc, etc, etc/
you know, as I think more about all the stupid screwed up govt programs this evening... and the reluctance of any "mainstream media designated" GOP candidate to address the fundamantal problems in our society....
I have completely decided.
This white racist is voting for Herman Cain.
Have a great evening.
Theresa
2:18 AM is not evening. It's closer to the witching hour.
Be sure to let us know how many of your white Irish American friends start their new careers picking crops on American farms.
"Whatever you think about the immigration policy in the United States, there is clearly the law and then there is reality.
The immigration issue is often debated in terms of justice, rights and the protection of our borders, but there's a business story to be told as well. The question is: Can the U.S. economy really function without undocumented workers?
...Gordon Hanson, an economist specializing in the impacts of immigration, studies the reality side of things at University of California-San Diego. He says that for decades there has been an unwritten social contract that says the U.S. isn't going to make it easy for immigrants to get in; there will be physical barriers and it will cost time, money and personal risk.
...There were flaws, but from a business point of view, this system was stable and predictable, Hanson says. Businesses could plan based on the reality of immigration enforcement. But tougher new laws in Alabama and Arizona changed all of that, amounting to what Hanson says is chaos.
"[It's] piecemeal reform undertaken at the state level with different states doing different things, making it harder for employers to hire illegal immigrants," Hanson says. "Employers just don't know what to think about what's going to come down the pike next."
...Republicans say the government should stop interfering in business and making life unpredictable for businesses. And yet, Republicans passed this law in Alabama and that's exactly what it does.
...Some economists theorize that without all those undocumented immigrants, the supply of labor will dry up and businesses will have to pay more to attract new, legal workers. Tomatoes end up costing more, but Alabama's 10 percent employment rate goes down.
But the theory isn't working so far at Boatwright's farm.
"Since this law went in to effect, I've had a total 11 people that were Americans come and ask for work," Boatwright says. "A total of one of those actually came back the next day."
That one worker picked about four boxes of tomatoes before leaving the field and quitting, Boatwright says. He says picking crops in the fields is a specialized skill that Americans just aren't accustomed to doing.
If Boatwright were to raise his wages in order to attract workers, he'd have to also raise the prices of his tomatoes. A price hike would not allow him to compete with the lower prices of tomatoes from neighboring states without tough immigration laws.
Boatwright's wife, Lana, says she fears how this will end.
"This problem is not going to go away for the state of Alabama," she says. "The farmers may go away from the state of Alabama, some of the industry may go away from the state of Alabama, but there's not a Band-Aid you can put on this to fix it quickly."
There is hope, however, but it requires an economic recovery.
"What we've seen after every U.S. recession ... is once the demand for labor really starts to pick up, what happens is those same politicians who were preaching a tough line on immigration suddenly get softer," says Hanson from University of California.
Hanson says these new laws are so tough, though, it may be difficult to go back — if the law stays in effect. The U.S. Justice Department has asked an appeals court to look at the constitutionality of Alabama's law."
"Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum recently pledged to "die on that hill" fighting against same-sex marriage, and made a similar vow to repeal all federal funding for contraception because it is "a license to do things in a sexual realm."
Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, declared that no other president had previously discussed "the dangers of contraception" and said that "sex is supposed to be within marriage" and "special."
He went on to describe "the battle" on same-sex marriage, claiming that allowing gay marriage would shake "the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like."
"I'll die on that hill," Santorum said, pledging to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage.
This isn't the first time Santorum has spoken out against non-traditional families. Santorum recently said the GOP's strategy for eliminating the "Democratic advantage" should be to marry off single mothers who "look to the government for help" and focus on building "two-parent families."
"Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: It is single mothers who run a household," he said. "Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they're going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government."
Santorum is also celebrated for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He has hit other GOP 2012 hopefuls for not supporting a federal "uniform definition of marriage" and has suggested that the "breakdown of the American family" wrecked the economy."
For the first time, more than 50 percent of Americans blame President Barack Obama for the nation’s economic woes, a Gallup poll released Thursday finds.
An unemployment crisis, falling home values and incomes, the debt ceiling debate and rising poverty are making Americans less confident in the president’s ability to keep the economy on sound footing. In an effort to boost employment and spur growth, Obama unveiled a plan earlier this month that includes a combination of spending and tax cuts, known as the American Jobs Act.
A majority of Americans don’t think Obama’s plan will lower the unemployment rate, a Bloomberg poll found. And if it doesn’t, Obama may end up counting himself in the ranks of the unemployed after election day. No president since World War II has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 6 percent except for Ronald Reagan in 1984, according to Bloomberg.
Even if Americans blame the president for the struggling economy, they’re supportive of his proposed efforts to fix it, according to The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank. The organization cited multiple polls before Obama announced the jobs act, which found more Americans supported a payroll tax cut and infrastructure spending than didn’t, two measures which the president included in his proposal.
Obama inherited an already high unemployment rate of 7.6 percent when he entered office in January 2009, which may be why the Gallup poll found that more Americans blame George W. Bush for the nation’s economic turmoil than the current president. Almost 70 percent of Americans blame Bush “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” for the state of the economy, according to Gallup.
Americans held similar views in June 2008, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. At the time, 75 percent of Americans said the country’s economic condition had worsened since he became president.
More Americans could be blaming Bush because Republicans are more likely to fault their own party leaders for the state of the economy than Democrats, the poll found. That may be why a plurality of Americans blamed congressional Republicans for Standard & Poor’s downgrading the nation’s credit rating last month, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll.
"This white racist is voting for Herman Cain."
Are you still planning to vote for him after he said:
“It's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision,” Cain said. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
what was he talking about ... abortion ? I assume ?
"This white racist is voting for Herman Cain.
Have a great evening.
Theresa"
Try a little honesty, Theresa. You support Herman Cain because of what his 9-9-9 plan does for fat cats like you. Poor folks pay more and fat cats keep more.
Check out One Really Long Graph
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/9-9-9-in-one-really-long-graph/
first of all, I am not a fat cat.
I worked my entire life... did you you ?
My husband and both work and have worked since we graduated from college...did you ?
We graduated with highly technical degrees in college ... did you ?
I like 9-9-9 because it makes the REALLY fat cats - ie the corporations - pay their fair share.
I have also paid taxes and always worked, even when kids were little and I was exhausted all time. we do our own yards work, we pay for ourselves... do you ?
Those 50% of us that work constantly are REALLY REALLY TIRED of being demonized and ask to continue contributing to those who don't bother to work at all.
done with the free handouts. It is time for everyone in the boat to start rowing.
Theresa
first of all, I am not a fat cat.
I worked my entire life... did you you ?
My husband and both work and have worked since we graduated from college...did you ?
We graduated with highly technical degrees in college ... did you ?
I like 9-9-9 because it makes the REALLY fat cats - ie the corporations - pay their fair share.
I have also paid taxes and always worked, even when kids were little and I was exhausted all time. we do our own yards work, we pay for ourselves... do you ?
Those 50% of us that work constantly are REALLY REALLY TIRED of being demonized and ask to continue contributing to those who don't bother to work at all.
done with the free handouts. It is time for everyone in the boat to start rowing.
Theresa
and, if kill all the deductions in the tax code and the loopholes.
you destroy a significant portion of the lobbyists power...
what's not to love about that ?
theresa
Even Cain can't stand the unfairness of his 9-9-9 plan. It's too regressive!
Consequently today, Cain has decided there should be 9-0-9 plan for the poor and exemptions for various expenses for business located in "opportunity zones."
"Up to now, Cain has touted a plan to scrap the current taxes on income, payroll, capital gains and corporate profits and replace them with a 9 percent tax on income, a 9 percent business tax and a 9 percent national sales tax.
But the plan seems to be unraveling. Cain's shift on zero exemptions comes after an independent analysis showed his tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, said low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent.
Households with the highest incomes, however, would get big tax cuts. Those making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut almost in half, on average, according to the analysis."
Cain's "9-0-9" and "opportunity zones" speech, Oct. 21, 2011, Detroit MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ManqBectBy0
one of the great things about Cain is isn't a typical politician, fixated on proving that he has never been wrong about anything
his 9-9-9 is on the right track and he is already shown signs he is open to adjusting it to accomodate objections
the abortion thing that has surfaced is a little worrisome but after watching Romney and Perry act like children the other night, he is definitely preferable to the other two front runners
I also like Bachmann alot but I'm not sure she's electable, just because people do vote on appearance, as shallow as that truth is, and I'm not sure she seems to be a commanding presence
The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, said low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent.
YES they are increasing 950 percent... because currently those households don't PAY ANYTHING.
Everyone should have to pay SOMETHING. that's my view.
everyone chips in. Period.
"Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain sought to clarify his position on abortion Friday afternoon in an appearance on Fox News.
"Abortion should not be legal, that is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that's that family's decision, that's all I'm trying to say," he said.
Cain's comments roiled Iowa Republicans, who hold special importance as voters in the first state in the primary process. A University of Iowa poll released Friday showed that Cain leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Iowa by a 37-27 margin.
Cain was asked on Fox News whether it would be problematic for his campaign. "Well I'm sorry if it's going to be problematic. Let me just state again, I am pro-life from conception, no exceptions," Cain replied. "I was trying to separate two situations here, and if they won't allow me to separate those two situations, they won't allow me to separate those two situations. That's unfortunate. I don't know how much more I can say that if I am pro-life from conception no exceptions, I will not fund any abortions by the government, I will sign any legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and all of the other variations of this whole pro-life issue."
Cain also defended his 999 plan against a report by the Tax Policy Center showing that 84 percent of taxpayers would see their taxes raised: "That is erroneous information. Even the tax policy group that did that admitted at the end of it that they took out the poverty provision that we had and they took out the opportunity zone provision, I get frustrated. They changed the assumptions, saying that 84 percent of the people are going to pay more in taxes is a lie, L-I-E, lie."
In ending the appearance, Cain reminded viewers: "Remember, 999 means jobs, jobs, jobs, and that's why they're attacking it.""
"YES they are increasing 950 percent... because currently those households don't PAY ANYTHING.
Everyone should have to pay SOMETHING. that's my view."
And they are cutting taxes on the richest 1% and 0.1% by huge margins after we have ALL enjoyed a decade of Bush tax cuts. Now it's time for poor folks to pay 950% more and rich folks to pay way more than 950% less according to your way of thinking.
Maybe in your fearful little universe that's fair, but in the real world that is simply increasing income inequality even more than it has already been increased since Reagan was elected.
"As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only a few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
MD Taxes.
Montgomery County.
Family of five, 3 kids. No mortgage deduction or other deduction
25K in declared income gets 8K back fed, 1.5K back MD, pays no fed or state.
50K in declared income, gets 1.5K back federal, pays no federal income tax and 2300 in state and local tax.
100K in declared income, pays 6.3K in federal tax, 6300 in state and local tax. (6.3% effective fed tax rate)
200K in declared income, pays 35K in federal, 14.7 in state and local, get hit with 1400 worth of AMT tax (note, this is with NO deductions other than their 3 kids and state and local taxes....)... so deductions are already limited for our high earners.... loses their child tax credit, loses their making work pay credit, and any pell grant or life time learning credit, etc, etc....
18% effective federal tax rate.
Yes these folks aren't paying their fair share. You right, what they are paying isn't fair because they are carrying the WHOLE LOAD for everyone else.
I don't how ANYONE can look at these numbers and say they aren't progressive enough.
Theresa
and here is why 9-9-9 works better.
First of all, 90% of the country doesn't pay hardly anything right now. So even if you collect just a little bit more, you are still multiplying that little more by 9x what you do increasing on the top 10%. Second of all, programs like earned income credit are HORRIBLY abused. couples claim they are seperated and file MFJ, split the income and each get 8K back. (I had this argument with another lib on facebook and one of my old highschool classmates runs an accounting business, does taxes and started chiming in...)
Finally, and most importantly, all the small businesses out there abuse the tax code terribly. Whereas the W2 income earners lose all their deductions, restaurant owners and convenience store owner frequently maintain two sets of books and hide earnings. It is RAMPANT. even the jury I served on where they were fighting over the sale of a small business ... the revenues of the business that were claimed in the sale paperwork were off by a factor of two from the revenue that business was declaring to the IRS. The fraud is outrageous. A consumption tax makes it much more difficult for businesses to get away with this.... Ryan was after the same thing with his plan. The underground economy has been estimate to cost the US govt 1 TRILLION in tax revenue folks. and we take in all of about 2 trillion every year so guess what, that is an ENORMOUS number.
And if you kill all the deductions, businesses can't get away with many of the games they have been using to zero out their income like GE. It is inherently fair.
That said, I am not opposed to an exclusion from income tax at the poverty threshold x 1.5 or x 2...
If the bush tax cuts expire, you put families like mine (who are already carrying most of the load for everyone else) in a position of choosing between paying for our kids college and staying married, because our marriage penalty jumps from 10 a year to 30K a year. 30K a year is a kids college tuition and I still have two more to put through... So guess what, I will pay 10K less instead of 20K more and get divorced on paper until our income goes back down... when you make the code that unfair, you have to expect that people will change their behavior to adapt. And there would be absolutely nothing illegal about doing that unless you want to suggest that co-habitation is also illegal. (and by the way, I have talked to lots of working couples planning doing the exact same thing, and the accountant I spoke to about this said she has been flooded with calls...)
So you go right away with your chanting about raising the rates. You might get a completely different result than what you believe will happen....
and finally, all of the owner owned small business control what gets declared as income, they can employ their kids (on paper), they can put up to 40K away for retirement straight off the top (even W2 earners can only do 16.5)... they can pay for their families utilities, cell phone bills, cars, gas, you name it in before tax income. W2 earners can't do that... they can try, but W2 will wipe that out quickly. So you see the restaurant owners pay cash to hide expenditures, declare all their personal expenditures as business write offs, and pay themselves a 40 or 50K salary ... even though the gross income of the business before all their "deductions" might have approached 300 or 400....
They don't need to declare a very high personal income, because all their expenditures are covered by the business.... so what you will note is that NOT ONLY are these folks not paying in, they are artifically making the overall US salaries look less, and they get the tax credits and stimulus checks on top of that meant for the truly poor. So YES THE TAX CODE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED. This behavior is RAMPANT according to studies that have estimated this as a trillion dollars of missed taxes.
As Mr. Cain would say, you are mixing apples and oranges, state income taxes with federal income taxes.
"For a while during Tuesday's Republican debate, it wasn't clear if Herman Cain was running for president of the United States or the Fruit Vendors Association. Responding to a criticism of his 9-9-9 tax plan, Cain said: "This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges."
When more criticisms came, he again took refuge in the produce aisle. Cain was not taking a position on apples, but he was stoutly in favor of oranges, and he was adamant that they should never be placed in the same bag.
What the exchanges revealed is that Cain lacks a flair for metaphor as well as a working grasp of his own platform. He emphatically denied the charge that his 9 percent business levy would function as a value-added tax. But the analysis commissioned by his own campaign, which he urged everyone to read, takes a somewhat different view.
"Each business would pay tax on gross receipts less payments to other businesses," it explains. "Allowing the subtraction of payments for intermediate goods yields the value added by the company. Subtracting investment as well yields a subtraction method value-added tax (emphasis added)."
Obviously, the Herminator has managed to avoid contact with the most basic facts about his own tax plan. He describes it in terms that even his own advisers reject. And he exhibits no curiosity about what it contains. Cain brings to mind basketball great Charles Barkley, who complained of being misquoted — in his autobiography.
The danger of anyone becoming president without any political experience is not just that he doesn't know many things, but that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Cain has an additional problem: He doesn't know what he thinks.
Not that he is bashful or tentative in expressing his opinions. On the contrary, he is all blunt candor and glib certitude. The problem comes only afterward, when he has to take responsibility for what he said.
He stated that he would not appoint any Muslim to his Cabinet or to the federal bench. Then he said he meant only Muslim "extremists." He said, in a tone of complete seriousness, that he would put up a fence along the Mexican border to electrocute intruders. He then claimed he was only joking.
He said he could imagine exchanging all the inmates in Guantanamo to win the release of a single American soldier. Then he claimed he "misspoke."
Cain refused to disclose what policy he would follow in Afghanistan on the ground that "there is obviously a lot of classified information to which I do not have access." That lack of information did not stop him from opposing this year's U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq — though, in all fairness, he may not realize the pullout was agreed to by President George W. Bush."
I think it's wonderful MD taxes so progressively. The federal government should tax progressively like it did under Clinton Presidency when we manage to pay down our debt and turn federal budget deficits into federal budget surpluses.
Interesting table of facts about GDP and debt under various US Presidents is found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt
The column documenting the billions of dollars in "Increase debt" is most illuminating.
wikipedia is crediting all of the 2009 debt, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE STIMULUS BILL, to BUSH.
Using this justification :
"The government fiscal year runs from October 1 (of the previous calendar year) to September 30. Budgets are enacted before the November general elections. This is why FY2001 falls under Clinton and FY2009 falls under G.W. Bush, they started in October 1, 2000 and October 1, 2008, respectively."
One small problem with that - the Democrats didn't PASS A BUDGET.
So the absurdity of crediting the 3 trillion some debt racked up during Obama's first year... truly mind boggling.....
do you not read your sources at all ?
Bush ran regularly .5T deficit. Obama has been running 2T deficit.
Sure, you can look at the individual numbers and start doing things like charging all the Iraq war to Bush - and in fairness, if you charge him for TARP you must credit back was has been paid back...
But trying to take all of the 2009 including the stimulus spending and charge it to Bush .... "because budgets are passed before Presidents are elected"... when the DEMOCRATS DIDN"T PASS A BUDGET AT ALL...
Priceless, truly priceless.
If Cains 9-9-9 is taxing gross receipts less cost of goods sold, it is implemented exactly like I would have suggested in order to simply not let business take the overhead expenses that tend to be so abused...
the opposition to 999 by Democrats shows what liars they are
they claim that the rich pay a lower rate than the middle class
why, then, would charging the wealthy the same 9% as everyone else be a tax cut?
it only would if you conceded that the rich are currently paying a higher rate
think about it
after you're finished eating mushrooms
"they claim that the rich pay a lower rate than the middle class"
The rich do pay a lower tax rate than the middle class does. Warren Buffet has questioned why he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary does. He even pays taxes at a lower rate than families like Theresa's.
The poor and most of the middle class will pay a much higher tax bill under 9-9-9 (that's 6-6-6 to Bachmann) than they do now. That's why 9-9-9 is morphing into 9-0-9. The glaring unfairness of 9-9-9 to the poor is unfathomable even to Cain, who came up with it.
And after 9-0-9, then we come to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D74rJzHFdg
"Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) supposedly wants to talk about the nation’s inequality—but not to just anyone. Cantor, at the last minute, canceled an appearance this afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania, where he was slated to speak. Curiously enough, Occupy Philadelphia had organized a march from City Hall to the campus to protest Cantor’s speech. But Cantor’s not giving a reason for the cancellation.
Earlier this week, we noted that Cantor had shifted his rhetoric to seemingly take a softer line on the Occupy Wall Street movement. But despite changing his tactics from calling protesters “mobs” to suddenly going on the circuit to discuss inequality, Cantor’s “solution” is the same old rhetoric backed by the 1 percent: Don’t create jobs. Cut taxes on the rich."
Doing the same thing as we did under Bush -- give more tax breaks to the rich, which ended up tanking our budget and economy -- is not going to bring about some miraculously different outcome than it did for Bush. He left our nation headed toward the next great depression and we have yet to recover from the deep wound his policies created. Giving the rich more tax breaks will not produce jobs. It will do for us just what the Bush tax cuts did -- make the rich richer and left 99% of us in the ditch.
You still don't get it.
the tax code needs to be overhauled.
the "truly rich" are getting income from dividends and interest.
wage earners top 1% starts at 380K
all earners top 1% starts at 1.5 million.
see the difference ?
the truly rich in a lot of cases run corporations, decide how much to pay themselves, cover all their expenditures out of their business income (PRE-TAX) deduct them all, and pay themselves a minimal wage.
thus you don't CATCH them by raising the rates, they will just cover MORE of their personal expenses out of business income and lower their declared wages....
I went out with my daughter and a couple of her friends from school .. they are all 21/22...
with a friend of mine as well. one of my daughters friends told me that her mother had a full catholic wedding to the boyfriend she had been dating for 10 years but DIDN"T have a court wedding or legally get married. why ? she has younger siblings (triplets) that mom is still trying to get through college, and if mom got married all of sudden the Pell grants etc disappear...
so she just didn't get married. for the same reason I may get divorced.
do you really want a tax code like this ? really ? why are you trying to defend it ?
This time Theresa's tax cheat friends got married in the eyes of the church, though not in the eyes of the law, and are claiming a single income when the family actually has two incomes. I wonder if the priest who married them at their full Catholic wedding supports them in this tax fraud like Theresa does.
"How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?
If you suspect or know of an individual or company that is not complying with the tax laws, you may report this activity by completing Form 3949-A. You may fill out Form 3949-A online, print it and mail it to:
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888
If you do not wish to use Form 3949-A, you may send a letter to the address above. Please include the following information, if available:
-Name and address of the person you are reporting
-The taxpayer identification number (social security number for an individual or employer identification number for a business)
-A brief description of the alleged violation, including how you became aware of or obtained the information
-The years involved
-The estimated dollar amount of any unreported income
-Your name, address and daytime telephone number
Although you are not required to identify yourself, it is helpful to do so. Your identity can be kept confidential. "
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html
"Warren Buffett isn’t the only rich guy who wants to higher taxes on the rich.
A new survey from Spectrem Group found that 68% of millionaires (those with investments of $1 million or more) support raising taxes on those with $1 million or more in income. Fully 61% of those with net worths of $5 million or more support the tax on million-plus earners.
Buffett, as you might recall, has proposed raising taxes on million-plus earners, saying the ultra-rich pay lower rates than everyday workers.
Rich people’s opinions of Buffett remain fairly positive in the wake of his tax-me-more crusade. More than a third of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worths said they have a more positive opinion of Buffett after his tax proposal. Only 19% of millionaires and 22% of the $5 million -plus group said they had a more negative opinion of him after the proposal.
More than 40% of both groups said their opinion hadn’t changed.
In other words, Buffett’s proposal had more supporters than detractors among the rich — though that support declines slightly as you move up the wealth ladder.
Explains George Walper of Spectrem: “What this tells us is that there are a number of wealthy folks who said: ‘Gee, we need to increase taxes to stimulate the economy. No one likes to be taxed more, but the reality is maybe it has to be done.’ ”
Walper added that he was also surprised at the positive reactions to Buffett’s political agenda. “I thought that among this group there would be a feeling of ‘why doesn’t he keep his nose out of it?’”"
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw
"Congressional Budget Office
Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007
October 2011
AFTER-TAX INCOME GREW MORE FOR HIGHEST-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:
-275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
-65 percent for the next 19 percent,
-Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
-18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.
The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
-The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
-Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
-All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.
MARKET INCOME SHIFTED TOWARD HIGHER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Shifts in the distribution of market income underlie most of the changes in the distribution of after-tax income. (Market income—or income before taxes and transfers—includes labor income, business income, capital income, capital gains, and income from other sources such as pensions.)
-Each source of market income was less evenly distributed in 2007 than in 1979.
-More concentrated sources of income (such as business income and capital gains) grew faster than less concentrated sources (such as labor income).
GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS AND FEDERAL TAXES BECAME LESS REDISTRIBUTIVE
Government transfers and federal taxes both help to even out the income distribution. Transfers boost income the most for lower-income households, while taxes claim a larger share of income as people's income rises.
In 2007, federal taxes and transfers reduced the dispersion of income by 20 percent, but that equalizing effect was larger in 1979.
-The share of transfer payments to the lowest-income households declined.
-The overall average federal tax rate fell."
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
Full version of the summary may include tables, charts, and footnotes:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/WebSummary.pdf
I am just asking you to differentiate between income earned via wages and income earned via interest and dividends.
Wage earners enter top 1% at 380K.
All other earners enter top 1% at 1.5 million.
everyone on the TTF blog keeps yelling about raising the INCOME tax rates (which hits WAGE EARNERS) who quite frankly don't earn nearly as much as the "truly rich".
You don't seem to understand that raising the rates on the wage earners doesn't hit the truly rich who don't earn their income through W2 wage income tax rates.
You know what would be fascinating, is what the rate was for the top 1% of earners on income (the 380K) and the top 1% of all other earners (1.5 million).
Because I will bet that the wage eaners paid double what the "all other types of income' did.
And there we have agreement. That is not fair.
But again, you don't fix that by raising the INCOME rates. You fix that by overhauling the tax code.
and I want to again point out that lot of the multi millionaires don't even show up on your radar screens that look at declared INCOME.
Because they are covering their expenses through their business and paying themselves in dividends, etc....
And basically running two sets of books and keeping the cash from the business.
so if you want to fix this, you have to overhaul the tax code for small business (schedule C's and subchapter S's) so it does something about limiting all expenses other than cost of good sold.... OR put businesses on some sort of expenditure sales tax basis...
What gets me is you keep coming after the wage earner tax rate when I as have pointed out SEVERAL times now, that doesn't touch the folks declaring millions in income. But hit over the head again the folks that are already giving 1/2 their income to the govt in taxes. and keeps people from getting married, and encourgages people to get divorced. some acknowledgement that a simple "raising of the rates" won't fix this would be appreciated.
Your naivete is astounding.
What makes you think your tax-cheating friends who keep two sets of books in order to pay personal expenses out of their businesses will suddenly become upstanding citizens willing to adhere to some new tax code?
Cheats are cheats. No new tax code will change their stripes.
Do some research on the history of the types of income the US has collected taxes on. Be sure to pay special attention to your buddy George W. Bush's actions cutting taxes on non-wage income and removing $1 trillion over 10 years from our budget.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3241
Elizabeth Warren is right.
"About every 15-20 years, we have another crisis, we called them "panics," we have different names for them. For a hundred and forty years, the pattern is just unmistakable.
Then we hit the Great Depression and coming out of the Great Depression, we put three new regulations in place: Glass-Steagall, which divides our community banks from the Wall Street investment banks, FDIC insurance, and some SEC regulations so you can invest on Wall Street and they can't cheat you too directly. For fifty years, we have no bank failures, no major crises. It works.
It gets to be the early 1980s. We go with this idea of let's get rid of regulation, and what happens? Late 1980s: Savings & Loan crisis. Should have been a warning. Late 1990s: remember long term capital management, the hedge funds? Should have been a warning. Early 2000s: Enron. Should have been a warning but we let it go and where do we end up? In the biggest crisis since the Great Depression."
At the same time as a result of tax rate cuts made at the top levels in the 1980s and early 2000s, income in the US has grown slowly for low wage earners while increasing nearly 300% for the richest of the rich, growing our income inequality to parallel that in China and Mexico.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/
folks who are doing this aren't my friends, first of all.
I said I sat on a jury and saw this ...
And much of what other folks are doing - not the two sets of books stuff - but certainly depreciation, etc - is perfectly legal.
Are you opposed to throwing out the tax code and starting over ?
Yes or no ?
from factcheck.org about repeal of Glass stegal ...
what other regulation were repealed that you belive should not have been ?
Or do you disagree with clinton ?
bill was passed with bi-partisan support, by the way. I have no idea if it contributed to the crisis or not.
Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University’s Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill. …You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence. But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into
"What the Costumes Reveal
By JOE NOCERA
On Friday, the law firm of Steven J. Baum threw a Halloween party. The firm, which is located near Buffalo, is what is commonly referred to as a “foreclosure mill” firm, meaning it represents banks and mortgage servicers as they attempt to foreclose on homeowners and evict them from their homes. Steven J. Baum is, in fact, the largest such firm in New York; it represents virtually all the giant mortgage lenders, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.
The party is the firm’s big annual bash. Employees wear Halloween costumes to the office, where they party until around noon, and then return to work, still in costume. I can’t tell you how people dressed for this year’s party, but I can tell you about last year’s.
That’s because a former employee of Steven J. Baum recently sent me snapshots of last year’s party. In an e-mail, she said that she wanted me to see them because they showed an appalling lack of compassion toward the homeowners — invariably poor and down on their luck — that the Baum firm had brought foreclosure proceedings against.
When we spoke later, she added that the snapshots are an accurate representation of the firm’s mind-set. “There is this really cavalier attitude,” she said. “It doesn’t matter that people are going to lose their homes.” Nor does the firm try to help people get mortgage modifications; the pressure, always, is to foreclose. I told her I wanted to post the photos on The Times’s Web site so that readers could see them. She agreed, but asked to remain anonymous because she said she fears retaliation.
Let me describe a few of the photos. In one, two Baum employees are dressed like homeless people. One is holding a bottle of liquor. The other has a sign around her neck that reads: “3rd party squatter. I lost my home and I was never served.” My source said that “I was never served” is meant to mock “the typical excuse” of the homeowner trying to evade a foreclosure proceeding.
A second picture shows a coffin with a picture of a woman whose eyes have been cut out. A sign on the coffin reads: “Rest in Peace. Crazy Susie.” The reference is to Susan Chana Lask, a lawyer who had filed a class-action suit against Steven J. Baum — and had posted a YouTube video denouncing the firm’s foreclosure practices. “She was a thorn in their side,” said my source.
A third photograph shows a corner of Baum’s office decorated to look like a row of foreclosed homes. Another shows a sign that reads, “Baum Estates” — needless to say, it’s also full of foreclosed houses. Most of the other pictures show either mock homeless camps or mock foreclosure signs — or both. My source told me that not every Baum department used the party to make fun of the troubled homeowners they made their living suing. But some clearly did. The adjective she’d used when she sent them to me — “appalling” — struck me as exactly right.
These pictures are hardly the first piece of evidence that the Baum firm treats homeowners shabbily — or that it uses dubious legal practices to do so. It is under investigation by the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. It recently agreed to pay $2 million to resolve an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the firm had “filed misleading pleadings, affidavits, and mortgage assignments in the state and federal courts in New York.” (In the press release announcing the settlement, Baum acknowledged only that “it occasionally made inadvertent errors.”)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html
Oh well, as long as the errors were inadvertent.
"I think this is something — something different going on right now. When you have the leader — the Republican leader of the Senate say, our number one goal — in the midst of this economy, our number one goal is to defeat the president, and they’re acting like it.
They don’t want to cooperate. They don’t want to help. Even on measures to help the economy that they traditionally have supported before, like a payroll tax cut, like infrastructure, rebuilding our roads and bridges and surface transport. These — so you have to ask a question, are they willing to tear down the economy in order to tear down the president or are they going to cooperate?
And, listen, there’s a reason why the Congress is at nine percent in some polls, approval, lowest in history. Because this is different than we’ve ever seen before."
Well look who's quoting Bill Clinton and singing his praises! Will wonders never cease?
I disagree with Bill Clinton on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and feel it was a major mistake to allow community banks to act like Wall Street investment banks. However, I do agree with Bill Clinton and the bi-partisan decision to enact his income tax policies.
You're a little slow just like Alan Greenspan was, but hey, seeing the light late is better than never seeing it! It took Greenspan over ten years to evolve enough to see the folly of the Bush tax cuts and the soundness of Bill Clinton's tax policy. Under President Clinton, we reduced our need to borrow money to operate our government and turned federal budget deficits into federal budget surpluses. All of Clinton's surpluses were squandered several times over by President Bush and "deficits do not matter" Cheney, who led us to the brink of the seemingly bottomless elevator shaft now known as the Great Recession of 2007.
"folks who are doing this aren't my friends, first of all.
I said I sat on a jury and saw this ..."
Come on now, T. That's not what you said back on MARCH 09, 2011 11:37 AM
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/03/reverse-robin-hood.html
You said:
"When I was on a jury ages ago over a little deli where one owner had made a contract, complete with a deposit to sell it, and then reneged"
which had nothing to do with:
"The car wash in this case was a deduction for my boss (because though it was cash flow neutral, on paper because of depreciation it was 100K or so negative every year). That, with his regular deductions brought his taxable income down to 60K or so, and his tax rate down enormously."
or
"One of the moms at the soccer field runs her kids cell phones off her husbands construction company"
And on April 4, 2011:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/03/insider-politics-killing-gender.html
"stories that my nanny used to tell me about the fake ss business where illegals were filing tax returns with fake ss#'s for kids to get money back from the govt."
I guess technically, "the boss" or "the nanny" may not necessarily be your friend, but either of them or the "mom on the soccer field" certainly could be. At any rate, they did not come from the deli owner reneges on sale of deli court case like you just tried to imply they did, did they?
Welcome to your new perspective, Theresa. It's too bad it took you 10 years to comprehend the meaning of what was so clearly visible right in front of you all this time.
you are switching the subject.
You never answered whether you were in favor of throwing the tax code out or not...
What my old boss (who by the way had a stroke and said car wash is supporting is family) was doing is LEGAL. He basically bought a business that breaks even in cash but loses money on paper due to depreciation of the equipment. All very legal. Used to take his income of around 250K down to 100K with the loss he deducted from his car wash business.....
the mom at the soccer field is NOT a friend. She is a an acquaintance, and also by the way, a committed democrat.
the nanny is definitely a friend. SHE wasn't doing this, she heard about this rampant abuse of earned income credit from her accountant and relayed it to me when I was railing about taxes. She is an African that I sponsored for legal status, co-signed her student loans, and a SOLID republican (having worked her butt off and is now giving half her income to the govt like the rest of us w2 schmucks.)
I am glad to hear you take a position on Glass Stegal.
I don't know enough about it to take a position, though at first blush I would agree with you, you don't want banks that take in consumer deposits in a position to take large risks with those deposits....
I am curious what other regulations you believe were repealed that shouldn't have been...(you didn't answer that question either...)
I am just trying to get to the truth. You seem to believe I am naive, see I believe I know far more about the US tax code than many folks, including our President, but whatever....
and from what I know, I would chuck the entire thing int he trash tomorrow....
I don't understand why you wouldn't agree with that.... unless you believe that the current lobbyists powers should be maintained.
cut it out with the personal insults already would you ?
It does not help further this discussion.
"You never answered whether you were in favor of throwing the tax code out or not..."
Last week, on Oct. 23, I told you "The federal government should tax progressively like it did under Clinton Presidency when we manage[d] to pay down our debt and turn federal budget deficits into federal budget surpluses. "
I am not in favor of any unproven fantasies like 9-9-9 or 9-0-9 or "flat taxes" and do not believe that "throwing the tax code out" will help us out of this recession.
I am in favor of returning to the tax brackets and rates we used under the Clinton Administration, which have already proven successful in the effort "to pay down our debt and turn federal budget deficits into federal budget surpluses."
I am not in favor of giving the rich further tax breaks. The Bush tax cuts have given the rich huge tax breaks for ten years, but they have not produced jobs or a balanced budget as the GOP tax cutters promised they would. Instead Bush's tax cuts have "led us to the brink of the seemingly bottomless elevator shaft now known as the Great Recession of 2007."
Is that answer clear enough for you yet?
"I am curious what other regulations you believe were repealed that shouldn't have been...(you didn't answer that question either...)"
The regulations Reagan changed that allowed the Keating Five and the S&L scandals of the late 1980s should be changed back to regulate transactions and prevent S&L scandals like they did after the Great Depression. Those regulations worked fine for 50 years until Reagan decided regulation was a problem. The fact is, greed is *the* problem!
Hedge funds were re-regulated by legislation in the US and Europe in 2008 and hopefully these re-regulations will help prevent future long term capital management problems. The deregulation of the energy markets enabled the Ponzi scheme Enron turned out to be to exist. In all theses cases, we need to bring back the effective regulations that prevented these scandals and and enforce these regulations rigorously with full IRS audits.
Human nature is greedy. Without regulation, human greed runs rampant and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
"I am just trying to get to the truth."
The truth? I disagree.
I don't see much truth when I try to calculate how your boss's $60K in taxable income in March has now become $100K in taxable income in October. It's also funny how the court case you were on the jury for was about a real estate contract and did not include the tax cheats you can identify to the IRS --people from your boss, to the nanny with her info about cheats, to other moms on the soccer field.
You stop lying about where you learned about the tax cheats you know and the taxable wages of your bosses' income and I'll stop insulting you by pointing your lies out to anyone else who's reading this conversation.
"I believe I know far more about the US tax code than many folks, including our President"
Delusions of grandeur aside, you are mistaken and you do not seem to have done any of the research I suggested you do yet. How many moms do you suppose can just go to local day care centers and be hired to work there? Get your head out of the clouds.
The reason we have so much unemployment is because the rich folks, excuse me the "job creators" with their 10 years of Bush tax cuts are not producing enough jobs for Americans. We need to pass the President's Jobs bill and get Americans working. No more GOP obstruction and delays.
Here's an early draft of Salon's recommendation for fixing our taxing problem. It's a good choice too:
"Fix the tax system
There are a million ways the tax code could be made fairer, simpler and more progressive, and most of those ways are opposed by powerful entrenched interests. But it is an inescapable fact that for most of the 20th century, federal income tax rates were very high on the wealthy — very, very high, in fact — and most of that period also happened to be a time of widespread prosperity for rich and middle-class Americans alike. The experiment in slashing taxes on the rich seems to have failed everyone but the rich.
The system as it currently stands forces states to fund essential services with the most regressive taxes possible, mainly sales taxes, in order not to scare businesses elsewhere. The current system allows hugely profitable transnational corporations to get away without paying anything, to make killings “overseas” while operating at imaginary losses domestically. Warren Buffett, as we all know, is paying less than his secretary.
So let’s create a millionaire’s tax bracket, and a financial transactions tax. Let’s close the carried interest tax loophole and raise the estate tax and taxes on capital gains. Let’s get the highest marginal tax rate back up to, at the least, Reagan-era levels [70%-50% 1980-1986, 38.5% in 1987, 28% in 1988 vs. 39.6% under Clinton]. Let’s stop all being held hostage, as a nation, to the fanatical anti-tax doctrine of the 1 Percent."
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/a_new_declaration_of_independence/
'Top marginal tax rates under all but one year of Ronald Regan's presidency were over 50%. He's remembered as the high priest of low taxes. Obama wants to revert taxes to 39.6%, where they were in the '90s. He's frequently referred to as a socialist.
Those who don't remember this are bound to suffer from thinking that when something goes up, it's high, and when something goes down, it's low. That's crazy. It's the absolute value of taxation that matters, and today's top marginal tax rates are extremely low on a historical basis. "
http://caps.fool.com/blogs/marginal-tax-rates-and-history/403124
so you think a tax code that encourages folks to get divorced because of the outrageous tax penalty for staying married is a good idea.
you think a tax code that allows small business owners to defer 40K in income for 401Ks when W2 folks can only do 16.5K is a good idea.
You think a tax code that essentially funds all of Washington lobbyists jockying for breaks and enables in a large part of the corruption of politicians is a good idea.
see I don't.
Okay, how about this ?
would you be in favor of killing all deductions, all loopholes, all preferences, switch business taxes to SOMETHING based on cost of good solds, keep the rates essentially the same only lower them across the board say 5% of something to make up for killing the deductions ?
Or do you favor our current complex tax code that essentially enables our corrupt government ?
Post a Comment
<< Home