What do you think of the "Occupy Wall Street" mob?
Poll
 | 13 votes (41.93%) | ||
| | 18 votes (58.06%) |
31 members have voted
What are some thoughts on the board? Do they get the "working man" to their side or to they create a "silent majority" against anyone associated with them?
Quote: AZDuffmanNow going into its third weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement
Its great weather in NYC, wait till it starts getting cold,
they'll disappear. They're loons, listening to interviews
with them, they sound like a bunch of Lib socialist
out of touch dummies.
I agree with many of their issues, including the danger to the US and world economies of the centralization of wealth and power in fewer and larger corporations. I also admit to wondering why it took so long after October 2008 for protests to occur. Reluctantly, I agree that this particular protest does not yet show the ability to reach out into a general political movement in ways that movements for integration and against the Vietnam War did in the 60's.
Bob, I see the world has NOT ended, my agreeing with something you said was a one-time occurrence. As usual, I find your name-calling rant ignorant and obnoxious. Anybody who thinks either "Lib" (I assume your meant "liberal") or "socialist" is an insult does not even deserve an answer, only a reminder to look up the definitions of the words first.
So, I don't think the wall street protestors will not make any impact, and should focus instead on government changes to make wages more equitable (raise minimum wages, improve overtime rules, increase taxes on the ultra-rich). But for that to happen, you need to penalize wall street executives and corporations for making so much profit. In today's world, you can't do that... there are free trade agreement in place to allow companies to headquarter elsewhere to avoid all of that.
Loons, no. Misguided, a bit.
Quote:The Tea Partiers say that instead of bailing out Wall Street, don't bail out anybody.
The Wall Street protestors, to the extent they have a coherent voice, say that instead of bailing out Wall Street, bail out everybody else *but* wall street. (Including themselves. Most especially themselves.)
IOW, they both, in fact, agree on the problem, but want different solutions.
Where I think the wall street protestors are in a box is how they rectify their view on the President. After all, the buck stopped with him on all these bank bailouts and other government programs. (And further back, he voted for them as a senator.) As it turns out some of his biggest campaign contruibutors have been banks, hedge funds, private equity firms and the like. This money will probably start going to Romney in 2012, but do the protestors want someone to run to the left of him, a la Kennedy in 1980? Should they read up on Ron Paul?
Quote:Should they read up on Ron Paul?
YES!!!!!! We all should!
Quote: boymimboI don't have a problem with the Occupy Wall Street "protestors". I don't know what effect they will have, if any, on Wall Street nor on the way the corporate powers operate. We live in a global village now, and the fact is that if the operating conditions on a company are such that they can no longer do business in a country, they no longer will.
That's partly true, but it's also the case that half of the world's ten biggest companies are headquartered in the US (and 13 of the top 20: see list). The relatively business-friendly corporate rules are why. From what I can tell, the premise of the protests is that the pendulum should swing somewhat from preferring the corporate entity to the individual. I think, based on today's polarized political climate, it's hard to argue that the U.S. government is currently "for the people" in the way it has been in the past.
for free food and drugs. Its all about the weather. Its
been gorgeous this fall in NYC. As soon as it gets cold
and rainy, they'll be gone back to their parents basement.
Quote: bigfoot66Quote:Should they read up on Ron Paul?
YES!!!!!! We all should!
Good god bigfoot are you on every forum/MB..... talkin about your love for Ron Paul?.....
Quote: AZDuffmanFew politicians want to get behind them, but many, including Pres Obama, seem to want to keep close enough to them to be able to jump in with them just in case their movement does go somewhere.
Obama is gambling that the protesters occupying Wall Street won't eventually figure out that Obama gets more Wall Street donations than Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum combined.
The protestors should be less concerned about bailouts and more concerned about the Social Security & Medicare tab the baby boomers are racking up. The bailout of banks actually turned a profit on most of them with the exception of the poorly run govt pets Fannie & Freddie
Quote: renoObama is gambling that the protesters occupying Wall Street won't eventually figure out that Obama gets more Wall Street donations than Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum combined.
That will change, the Private Equity folks would rather give $$ to Romney this go around. Nobody should give any politician any money until they demonstrate they can practice fiscal discipline.
The Republicans will bleed the holy rollers dry, the dems will bleed the unions dry and the tea party folks will lose because they don't have any money beyond the Koch's (who really will only back a winner anyway).
Its important to understand that we actually have a one party system who's only goal is to keep their lame jobs as power brokers to special interests.
Quote: Scotty71My opinion is it's likely a lot of rich kids with art history degrees and a few marine biologists.
Here in Pittsburgh I walk thru their camp sometimes to get a beat on what is going down. Sitting there with laptops and iPhones, not your father's Hooverville. I am wondering why MSNBC doesn't carp about them being "almost all white" like they had a fascination with regarding the Tea Party.
Speaking of "getting a beat on it," I saw the first anti-semitic sign at the local one today. If NY is any guide there will be more. Peace and tolerance? My tail!
Quote: AZDuffman
Speaking of "getting a beat on it," I saw the first anti-semitic sign at the local one today. If NY is any guide there will be more. Peace and tolerance? My tail!
Wow, then it is getting derailed pretty fast, plus they know cameras are there. Without a single message they are F*ed. Wall Street will do whatever they can get away with just like any other business.
I have a few clients you would call real "Wall Streeter's" They gave a combined $4MM to charities and paid 6MM in taxes over the last two years. Obviously these are the guys you want to put out of business.
Quote: Scotty71Wall Street will do whatever they can get away with just like any other business.
See, the thing I like about Wall Street is that people are under no pretense that they have any other goal.
Contrast this to executives at... oh, say, health insurance companies. And that Obamacare (if upheld as constitutional) won't be making them any poorer.
Quote: 7outlineawaySee, the thing I like about Wall Street is that people are under no pretense that they have any other goal.
Contrast this to executives at... oh, say, health insurance companies. And that Obamacare (if upheld as constitutional) won't be making them any poorer.
You are right wall St. makes no apologies for being in the money game. It was more honest when they were partnerships risking their own capital rather than faceless shareholders.
My biggest gripe with wall Street is the fact most of the money is made on the spread and repackaging. They haven't been providing a valuable service for a long time.
I was recruited by and interviewed with Goldman in 2006 and they were much more interested in my ability to sell garbage to clients & find new clients than they were about my ability to make my clients money. Granted this wasn't in the big money area of Investment Banking but rather Private Client wealth management but it goes to show that they were more concerned about Goldman winning than they were about client results.
Heath Ins companies especially Medicare/Medicade specialist will clean up under the new health care laws, its why I'm buying up small specialty Medicare/Medicade Ins co.'s... they are going to get gobbled up by the Humana's, Wellpoints and Aetna's of the world.
Quote: Scotty71Wow, then it is getting derailed pretty fast, plus they know cameras are there. Without a single message they are F*ed. Wall Street will do whatever they can get away with just like any other business.
I have a few clients you would call real "Wall Streeter's" They gave a combined $4MM to charities and paid 6MM in taxes over the last two years. Obviously these are the guys you want to put out of business.
I'm not sure it was ever on the rails to begin with. It seems the same group that hits every G-20 meeting (which we had two years ago, same kind of socialist nutjobs.) You also have to remember, liberal rallies are not as focused as conservative ones. Envrionment/unions/protectionism/insert-grievance-here, limited connection and some are almost opposed to each other.
At the Tea Party it was Constitutionalism, small-government, and do-for-selfism. Even the "end the fed" folks have a constitutional issue of sorts.
And the Tea Party Rallies clean up after themselves. This one has cardboard "paths" all over the place and is a tennement of tents. That is after not even a week. I can't imagine the trash in NY.
blind by other protesters. Laptops, iPhones, Blackberry's,
Kindel's, food, money, clothes, its all being stolen when
they turn their backs. Thats the kind of people they
attract, people who have no morals.
Quote: EvenBobWhat I find hilarious is the protesters are being stolen
blind by other protesters. Laptops, iPhones, Blackberry's,
Kindel's, food, money, clothes, its all being stolen when
they turn their backs. Thats the kind of people they
attract, people who have no morals.
It is the same kind of naievity on the left all the way up to Obama himself. Remember "reset button" and "meet Iran with no preconditions" as if just being nice and your enemy will "like you." Some of us learn about the real world early. Some in college. Some at a first job. Some never get it.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is the same kind of naievity on the left
Hey they want to redistribute the wealth, its only
fair they start with their own stuff. LOL!
Still, I've always been a supporter of free speech. Republicans can call them a bunch of unemployed potheads but to what end? Like the beginning of the tea party movement, there are always bad eggs in a crowd.
The idea that there is an ever-widening income gap has been happening for a while.
Quote: boymimboThe idea that there is an ever-widening income gap has been happening for a while.
Like forever, maybe? The smart ambitious people have always
made more money than the average lazy people. Should it
be the opposite?
I'm one of the lucky ones. I make a very good living because I am hard working and ambitious. But I know that I'd be making quite a bit more money if my CEO wasn't the #1 income earner in the land or that the company I work for was is interested in saving cash for the next acquisition. There would be alot more Americans working if our business didn't outsource a great deal of its work to Hyperabad.
I'm saying to give Americans a decent living wage so that they can remain in the middle class and that loopholes should be closed so that American companies employ more American workers and that the ultrarich pay a greater part of their income in income taxes. But really these people wouldn't be complaining at all if they were working.
Quote: boymimboHowever, there is a generation of average-yet-hard-working people who were able to get by through union labor, making a decent living in the workplace.
I knew a couple of families in the 60's and 70's that had middle
aged parents who both worked for GM. Factory workers. They
lived a lifestyle about 3 steps above their intelligence and abilities.
New cars every year, boats, cottages, one even had a Beechcraft
airplane. Then it went bust, GM priced themselves almost out of
business. The unions are whats wrong with this country, not whats
right with it. In 2007, the average UAW worker made $30 an hour,
$75 an hour if you include benefits, insurance, and pension.
Quote: EvenBobThe unions are whats wrong with this country, not whats
right with it.
No worse than the conditions that originally spawned them. It's a lot more difficult to unionize workers who feel like they're getting a fair shake.
This doesn't mean they don't become corrupt or overreach. Big unions and big corporations sometimes have the same problems. They start to exist more because they can and they have the clout rather than provide the best service. I'd wager that there are (or could be) several small oil companies that would work harder be hungrier, but have to fight to get a place among more sluggish larger entities who can wield both economic and political clout to keep their position in the market place.
Quote: boymimbo
I'm one of the lucky ones. I make a very good living because I am hard working and ambitious. But I know that I'd be making quite a bit more money if my CEO wasn't the #1 income earner in the land or that the company I work for was is interested in saving cash for the next acquisition.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. What does the CEO's wage have to do with yours?
So the rich paying almost 50% of their income is not good enough for you?Quote:I'm saying to give Americans a decent living wage so that they can remain in the middle class and that loopholes should be closed so that American companies employ more American workers and that the ultrarich pay a greater part of their income in income taxes.
As to getting "a living wage" that is based on skill level and demand. Truck drivers, welders, machinists, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics--all of these jobs pay well. And there are almost always openings.
Quote:But really these people wouldn't be complaining at all if they were working.
I doubt that. The OWS are the kind of greedy people who constantly want more money and more free stuff.
Quote: boymimboThere is really no coherent message however due to a lack of leadership (Fox News is not sponsoring them).
Why would an impartial news channel sponsor them? Fox News Channel has no history of sponsoring anhy kind of political rally or group so why would you bring them up?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would an impartial news channel sponsor them? Fox News Channel has no history of sponsoring anhy kind of political rally or group so why would you bring them up?
You are either very clever (and funny), or not very clever (but funny)!
Oh, wait a minute ... there are no jobs.
In that case, I think they all need to go out and get a haircut.
Damned whippersnappers.
Back in my day, when we protested, we got shot.
Back in my day ...
Quote: MrVI think they all need to go out and get a job.
Oh, wait a minute ... there are no jobs.
I have four jobs altogether, they can't find one?
Sad as it is to say, bullets did end the 1960s riots.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have four jobs altogether, they can't find one?
According to the Wall St Journal poll, 85% of them
have jobs.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have four jobs altogether, they can't find one?
One man, one job, one vote. Stop being so greedy, AZ. :)
As for Fox News sponsoring the Tea Party:
Quote: mediamatters.orgDespite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering; during the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsors" on TaxDayTeaParty.com
I could go on and give plenty of individual examples if you wish.
Bullets, really? You oppose free speech? Really? I just don't get those who support the tea party rallies get so rankled with the wall street rallies. The right to protest and free speech is a foundation of democracy.
Quote: boymimboAZ, your statements of late make your position clear. The richest are paying the lowest percentage of income tax in recent history, and it's well less than 50%. Forbes Magazine link here states that the richest 400 Americans pay an 18% tax rate. So where do you get 50%? But to be fair, the average FEDERAL tax rate for Amercians earning 1M+ a year is 29.1%.
You are confusing terms. Not 50% of their income, 50% of ALL income tax receipts. The 400% richest are paying more than 18%, that rate is based on the capital gaines only. But tax has already been paid at the corporate level for that capital gain. So Warren Buffet who claims he is paying so little is actually paying 36% corporate rate plus the capital gain rate at 15% for a total of 51%. In any case, it is nothing but greed to be calling for the prople to pay the most to pay more when half the populaton is paying zero.
Quote:As for Fox News sponsoring the Tea Party:
News stations give out information about gatherings, including links and "telling people to get out there" all the time. This is not sponsorship. Sponsorship is putting the organizer on the payroll, renting a venue, etc.
Quote:Bullets, really? You oppose free speech? Really? I just don't get those who support the tea party rallies get so rankled with the wall street rallies. The right to protest and free speech is a foundation of democracy.
The difference is the Tea Parys Rallies are not based on greed and demanding things. The Tea Partys are not a bunch of people living in a park for over a month. The Tea Party Rallies had no arrests. The Tea Party Rallies are not full of racist and anti-semetic people and signs. The Tea Partys are not calling for socialism. To compare the two is to compare George Washington to Fidel Castro.
Oh? Name a TV network telling people to get out to the protests. Name a CNN or CNBC commentator who is speaking at a Wall Street protest. Sponsorship is indeed putting their label on a protest, which indeed Fox News did. If ABC came on during an election campaign and said "vote Obama", is that sponsorship? I think so.
Signs at a Tea Party Protest: "Obama's Plan: White Slavery", "The American Taxpayer are the Jews for Obama's Ovens", "Our Tax $ Given To Hamas To Kill Christians, Jews and Americans, Thanks Mr. O", "Barack Hussein Obama - the new face of Hitler". The Wall Street protestors are not calling for capitalism.
At least Fidel has free health care. Who knows what Cuba would be like not for 50 years of US sanctions?
I will agree with you however that the Occupy Wall street protests are not nearly as peaceful and clean as the Tea Party protests and is not carrying a message. Still, the right to protest and free speech is still a basic right of all Americans. And don't kid yourself, the Tea Party was demanding things and is greedy: more money in their pockets through less spending by government.
Personally, I am a big proponent of spending cuts in government spending. But I also think that the richest should be paying more tax. You gotta have both if you're going to balance the budget.
Quote: boymimboYou can't add corporate tax to personal tax to state that a person's tax rate is 50%. And you are aboslutely right in stating that the richest americans are paying the biggest proportion of taxes... that's because the rich are getting richer, which is pretty much the basis of the Occupy Wall Street protest.
The rich are getting richer, the middle class are getting richer, and the poor are getting richer. Look at how much better everyone lives than since just the 1970s. Heck, even "the poor" almost always have a car, several TVs, and a bunch of other things few had years ago.
Quote:Name a TV network telling people to get out to the protests. Name a CNN or CNBC commentator who is speaking at a Wall Street protest. Sponsorship is indeed putting their label on a protest, which indeed Fox News did. If ABC came on during an election campaign and said "vote Obama", is that sponsorship? I think so.
I won't even get into the biased coverage Obama received in 2008. But I see it all the time, if something is happening news outlets will have an "if you are going" link or right on the screen.
Quote:ns at a Tea Party Protest: "Obama's Plan: White Slavery", "The American Taxpayer are the Jews for Obama's Ovens", "Our Tax $ Given To Hamas To Kill Christians, Jews and Americans, Thanks Mr. O", "Barack Hussein Obama - the new face of Hitler". The Wall Street protestors are not calling for capitalism.
I have been to several Tea Party rallies and never saw a sign close to that. Some rallies had some lefties bring such signs to get on TV and make the movement look bad. They usually gave themselves away by how obvious they were about it. (Though I have to agree on not funding Hamas as that is exctly what they do.)
Quote:At least Fidel has free health care. Who knows what Cuba would be like not for 50 years of US sanctions?
Fidel's health care is great if you like care worse than the average dog gets in the USA. US sanctions should have been meaningless after all the USSR and later Chavez $$$ Cuba gets, Cuba is a disaster because communism is a system that destroys everything anywhere it is tried.
Quote:And don't kid yourself, the Tea Party was demanding things and is greedy: more money in their pockets through less spending by government.
Oh, come on! Demanding government spend less is "greedy" somehow? You are really reaching now. Wanting to keep your hard earned money and not have it wasted by the government is not greedy, it is simple common sense. Wanting "free health care" and more taxes on someone else to pay for your handouts IS greedy as that is wanting something someone else earned and you have no right to.
Quote:Personally, I am a big proponent of spending cuts in government spending. But I also think that the richest should be paying more tax. You gotta have both if you're going to balance the budget.
So what is "enough" for the rich to pay in your opinion. 70%? 80%? Do they get to keep anything just because you think their paying "most" of the taxes should be replaced by them paying "all?"
Quote: AZDuffmanmore taxes on someone else to pay for your handouts IS greedy as that is wanting something someone else earned and you have no right to.
Should we do anything about business situations where the person or the people at the top get larger increases in salary in profitable times than the people at the bottom? I'm talking matching percent increases, not matching dollars.
Because if no one is monitoring whether the salary increases or bonuses of the person getting lowest wage gets the same benefit from a company as the top people we don't know if it's fair or not. One thing is, that situation is more in control of the people making the most than than the ones not.
In ideal cases, the people at the bottom will share proportionally in success of the company. But that's by no means guaranteed.
But of course, taxes have to be fair no matter if the situation of income was or not. (according to some)
Quote: rxwineIn ideal cases, the people at the bottom will share proportionally in success of the company.
That assumes that everyone in a company contributed equally to any success. I would rather earn my own reward - including at the expense of others who simply turn up to work each day and do not drive the success.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe rich are getting richer, the middle class are getting richer, and the poor are getting richer. Look at how much better everyone lives than since just the 1970s. Heck, even "the poor" almost always have a car, several TVs, and a bunch of other things few had years ago.
This is a misdirection. We both know the source of the Occupy protests isn't standard of living now compared to the 1970s, it's relative standard of living between income strata. You say everyone's getting richer? When you crunch the statistics from the Census office (Table H-1), you find the annualized income growth rate from 1970 to 2010 based on 2010 dollars ranges from 0.198% growth for the lowest quintile to 1.113% for the highest 5%. Over those 40 years, the lowest tier saw an increase of 8% total while the top 5% grew 56% overall. The rich are getting richer far faster than everyone else. That's what the bottom 95% are angry about.
Top 5% income was around $180k in 2010. If you're not in the top 5%, are you happy with the fact that those making $180k are seeing their average incomes increase faster (as a percentage) than your own?
Quote: algleThat assumes that everyone in a company contributed equally to any success. I would rather earn my own reward - including at the expense of others who simply turn up to work each day and do not drive the success.
I would rather have taxes from the rich come from those who aren't creating jobs, or whatever contribution they are ALL collectively making to everyone's benefit. Because they ALL are, of course.
Anyway, rewarding individual accomplishment or punishing slackers isn't excluded from my premise either
Quote: MathExtremistThis is a misdirection. We both know the source of the Occupy protests isn't standard of living now compared to the 1970s, it's relative standard of living between income strata. You say everyone's getting richer? When you crunch the statistics from the Census office (Table H-1), you find the annualized income growth rate from 1970 to 2010 based on 2010 dollars ranges from 0.198% growth for the lowest quintile to 1.113% for the highest 5%. Over those 40 years, the lowest tier saw an increase of 8% total while the top 5% grew 56% overall. The rich are getting richer far faster than everyone else. That's what the bottom 95% are angry about.
Top 5% income was around $180k in 2010. If you're not in the top 5%, are you happy with the fact that those making $180k are seeing their average incomes increase faster (as a percentage) than your own?
You are spot on about this M.E. with easy credit the fact that people have things doesn't mean squat. However they are protesting against a faceless enemy and it's a total catch 22. If you want to hurt corporations you stop buying their products, drive less and in general consume significantly less of everything-the protesters from what I can see aren't putting out that message. With consumer demand down our economy would sputter and their would be even fewer jobs.
The 2 income family has probably been one of the greatest destructive forces to our nation but I would love to see the heat that would draw from folks (esp. "liberals") if you told married women (or men) to get out of the workforce and stop paying people to raise your kids. If people cant make it on one income they are living above their means. I would penalize two income families above a certain AGI level, I think it would create significant short term pain for some but at the greater good of U.S. society for the long term.
IMO Americans aren't ready for the tough decision that need to be made to right the ship and Wall St. / CEO pay is only a small part of the problem.
Quote: Census Bureau
Table H-3. Mean Household Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent, All Races: 1967 to 2010.
2010 Dollars...
Year Lowest 5th 2nd 5th 3rd 5th 4th 5th Top 5th [Top 5%]top 5% 2010 11,034 28,636 49,309 79,040 169,633 287,686 2009 11,743 29,740 50,352 79,993 173,664 300,264 2008 11,803 29,890 50,766 80,769 173,221 298,437 2007 12,147 30,960 52,544 83,140 176,632 301,999 2006 12,276 31,119 52,148 82,542 181,858 321,611 2001 12,483 31,365 52,499 82,315 179,768 320,771 1980 10,858 27,024 44,594 65,698 117,139 175,049 1979 11,213 27,889 45,981 67,477 121,097 184,686 1978 11,302 27,757 45,831 67,131 119,863 182,447
In real dollars, in 2010, there has been virtually no change in income from the bottom 20% since the 70s. Meanwhile the top 5th is making 45% more in real dollars than in 1980. And the top 5% make 64% more than in 1980. In terms of real income, 2001 was the banner year.
And while real income has remained steady, the cost of health insurance has gone through the roof. And why the increase in the wage gap? Corporations are paying its top income earners more while paying the minions the same (or less). And that, in a nutshell, is what the Occupy protests should be about.
Go ahead and blame the "obvious lefties" who are planting signs at the Tea Party Rallies. Yeah right.
Quote: MathExtremistThis is a misdirection. We both know the source of the Occupy protests isn't standard of living now compared to the 1970s, it's relative standard of living between income strata. You say everyone's getting richer? When you crunch the statistics from the Census office (Table H-1), you find the annualized income growth rate from 1970 to 2010 based on 2010 dollars ranges from 0.198% growth for the lowest quintile to 1.113% for the highest 5%. Over those 40 years, the lowest tier saw an increase of 8% total while the top 5% grew 56% overall. The rich are getting richer far faster than everyone else. That's what the bottom 95% are angry about.
Top 5% income was around $180k in 2010. If you're not in the top 5%, are you happy with the fact that those making $180k are seeing their average incomes increase faster (as a percentage) than your own?
To follow up, CNN is reporting today that the Congressional Budget Office reports the top 1% of earners saw incomes grow by 275% over the past 30 years while middle-income earners only saw a 40% increase and the poorest quintile income grew by 18%.
There it is, folks. And lest anyone forget the lessons of history, this is the sort of thing that used to foment popular revolutions.
Quote: MathExtremist
To follow up, CNN is reporting today that the Congressional Budget Office reports the top 1% of earners saw incomes grow by 275% over the past 30 years while middle-income earners only saw a 40% increase and the poorest quintile income grew by 18%.
There it is, folks. And lest anyone forget the lessons of history, this is the sort of thing that used to foment popular revolutions.
Let them eat cake! The cheap cake mix kind, not the expensive stuff.... they wont appreciate it. Redistribution of wealth is a slippery slope. I resigned from every job I had when my manager started counting my money, usually when I was making more than him or her.
I would be happy to pay higher taxes ( I'm a top 5% but not top 1% based on the #'s ME put out) if they would cut spending and thus effect both sides of the Income Statement. It's pretty F'd up though because the government is telling those with the highest tax burden that "we know how to spend this money better" but doesn't have the political or social balls to tell welfare folks you cant buy that food, those shoes, TV etc... because that is a waste of money.
Would you consider it slavery if welfare recipients were forced to work for the government at least ____ hours a week/month. Why waste money paying someone (wages,medical & pension), at an IRS call center when tele-commuting technology could remove the need for a call center. We need to be much more utilitarian with our spend. The govt pensions are the biggest give-away period as govt employees rank pretty well with private sector income & benefit packages and guess what-the govt employee pension didn't take a hit like your 401k did. Many in this area are bitching that they are having to pay a higher portion of health insurance cost.... shit always rolls down hill especially in the private sector, get used to it.
The banks are paying back their TARP $$ but I'd like to see the person collecting unemployment pay that back when they get on their feet again.
Or, from
Quote: EPI.org
In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.
The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker’s pay over time, as shown in Figure A. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).
This is my point I made earlier. I work hard, for a large corporation. My CEO is in the top 10 of Forbes executives. In the five or so years that I've worked there, i've earned the company well north of a million dollars in NET revenue, yet my pay has gone up by 10.2%, less than the CPI, while my CEO has earned something on the order of $1 billion. Most of my bretheren are in the same boat. The America where you prosper for hard work is gone -- profits are going to the executives. The only path to richness is entrepreneurship, and that's disappearing too due to the corporate red tape and the cost of doing business (including paying for health insurance).
Now, personally, corporations are free to do whatever they want... this is the base of capitalism after all. I choose to work for the company I work for because it's the best in the world at what it does and my workplace conditions are generally excellent. I'm not quitting anytime soon, and I make far too much money for them to get rid of me. So I choose my fate.
But folks have the right to protest too. And if they get arrested and act disorderly, so be it. It's not like protestors don't get arrested. I sincerely doubt corporations will take any notice of this whatsoever, but for what it's worth, I think it's a worthy cause.
