• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Does Obama Really Want to be Associated with the Occupy movement?

bmoneydeac said:
does anyone know of any websites that allow you to toggle tax rates to see what the full effect would be on the tax receipts and any negative effect it would have on the economy? i always hear people describe such a change as minimal or insignificant and i'd like to just see what kind of numbers we are talking about. i remember there were some applications that would let you work with state tax rates and programs to allow you to try and balance the state budget a year or two ago. something similar for the federal government would be a great time killer and also give you a better idea of the demographics we are working with.

for the record, i think it is an absolute must to fix our tax code to increase revenues from the top 1% or whatever. i know looking at mitt's tax return is anecdotal, but for him to pay such a low tax rate is an absolute failure of our system. i don't blame him for it because he is (presumably) playing by the rules just like we all do in april.
Click to expand...

I think we need to restructure and simplify the tax code as well but that was not really what I was talking about. Even if we taxed millionaires at 100% I don't see how that would solve the fairness problem. Would it make the populist happy? Maybe but soon they would realize that taking away money from the rich does not = more opportunity for the poor. When people talk about inequality in our system I would think they are much more concerned about their lack of opportunity not the rich's access to it...at least they should be.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Must've been out hunting pheasants with an uzi that woeful day when Obama and all the rest of the dems took your precious guns away -- I missed it. It's obviously clear now, though, that it will be a major issue in the upcoming election. Hide yer guns.
Click to expand...

He didn't take the guns away just like the GOP didn't take away the 1st Amendment.
 
The "fairness movement" is such a lame name. It sounds staright out of 1968 Berekley. Get a better name you fucking hippies.
 
Occupy Wall Street is bull. They were protesting something totally reasonable (Getting big business out of politics and making sure they have less power/influence) and managed to screw it up by fulfilling EVERY LIBERAL HIPPIE DOOFUS STEREOTYPE. This includes setting rules in place that prevent the movement from reaching any sort of advancement.

Seriously, watch the Colbert video. Those people are losers.
 
Hello said:
Occupy Wall Street is bull. They were protesting something totally reasonable (Getting big business out of politics and making sure they have less power/influence) and managed to screw it up by fulfilling EVERY LIBERAL HIPPIE DOOFUS STEREOTYPE. This includes setting rules in place that prevent the movement from reaching any sort of advancement.

Seriously, watch the Colbert video. Those people are losers.
Click to expand...

It is honestly just Krzyzewski-ville on a grand scale.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
How would that solve the fairness problem? It would take away a minuscule amount of money from the super successful. I fail to see how that helps the unsuccessful. Again, great populist politics but accomplishes very little.
Click to expand...

I am constantly amazed by your positions. Do you actually think before you post?

Hwo does it fix fairness? It fixes fairness by maknig sure the tax code isn't circumvented by loopholes that only one class of people can utilize.

By having tens to hundreds of billions more in revenues, the government won't have to borrow as much.

Bernie Madoff was an amateur as a conman as compared to Ronald Reagan and his trickle down econmic scam. Trickel down economics is the biggest scam ever perpatrated on the American economy.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It is honestly just Krzyzewski-ville on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

Yep. Seeing the Occupy DC area confirmed this. If you give young adults an opportunity to camp out for whatever reason, they'll do it and have fun with it.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Funny how the Dems love all of the Amendments except for the second one.

I love all of the amendments except for 18. Fortunately, the 21st took care of that.
Click to expand...

Their affection for the Tenth isn't particularly robust, either.

I support a repeal of the Third Amendment. We could save a fortune and move even more money away from Defense and over to more entitlements.
 
WFU71 said:
the estimate I read was 30-40 billion a year.
Click to expand...

Well just retuning to the Clinton era tax rates for the Top 2% is supposed be worth $79B/year.

By getting rid of the dividened and capital gains benefits and adding a righ guys' AMY has to be more than the $79B.
 
RJKarl said:
Well just retuning to the Clinton era tax rates for the Top 2% is supposed be worth $79B/year.

By getting rid of the dividened and capital gains benefits and adding a righ guys' AMY has to be more than the $79B.
Click to expand...

The top 1% of AGI starts at $350,000.
 
I wodner if Buffet is about gross income versus AGI.

Plus the top 1% would only be addiing about 2-3% of AGI versus many adding 10% of those who earn $1M+.

Assuming your number is right, we don't need $20-30B. Let's just borrow that quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade and pay interest on it forever.
 
I get what you're saying about collecting more revenue but it's hard to convince me what exactly needs to be done when there are so many inefficient programs and the DOD can't account for $2B.

In college, if I asked for a bigger monthly allowance, I had to show my dad all of my bank statements and prove that I was using my money efficiently and not wasting it. Why can't we hold our government to the se standard?
 
PhDeac said:
Dr. King would have decried any violence, but he definitely would have supported the Occupy movement.
Click to expand...

Besides characterizing Occupy as a "movement", I agree that Dr. King may have agreed with some of the loosely defined goals to conincide with "economic justice", Dr. King would NOT have approved the attacks on police, the breaking into government buildings, or, (dare I say it?) the burning of an American flag because I do believe at the core of his being Dr. King was first and foremost an American.
 
bobknightfan said:
Absolutely great thread.

I think that the OP should amend his board name, leaving out the "ncsports" part of it. "Nut1" sounds more like him.
Click to expand...



bobknight, thanks for the tip. I really appreciate your enlightening thoughts and contributions to an intelligent discussion.
 
To extrpapolate that Obama supports the violence is ignorant and dishonest. You arte better than that.
 
Milhouse said:
let's have a good flag burning argument.

i, for one, hope we always have a president who supports the right for US citizens to burn the flag.
Click to expand...

The President can speak out against acts by protesters without saying whether it is against the Constitution. The protesters have the right to burn the flag but it doesn't mean anyone has to condone it. The protesters DO NOT have the right to assault other people including law enforcement nor do they have the right to break into government buildings nor do they have the right to "occupy" anywhere they please. Those are not free speech rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top