CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry

SS109 wrote: OK, retraction, the 99% get more goverment payments than the corporations.

:rofl

And do you think that is a problem? what's your point? or your beef? or complaint?

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: OK, retraction, the 99% get more goverment payments than the corporations.

:rofl

And do you think that is a problem? what's your point? or your beef? or complaint?

I am just saying that Wall Street doesn't have as much influence as OWS thinks it does. Wall Street can try to buy elections and politicians, but they don't have too many votes.

SS109 wrote:

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: OK, retraction, the 99% get more goverment payments than the corporations.

:rofl

And do you think that is a problem? what's your point? or your beef? or complaint?

I am just saying that Wall Street doesn't have as much influence as OWS thinks it does. Wall Street can try to buy elections and politicians, but they don't have too many votes.

I think the money spent by lobbyists, corporations and Wall Street to our politicians trumps our votes every time when it comes to setting policy.

Lobbyists? AARP has lobbyists, the NRA has lobbyists, even non-profits have lobbyists. Sure they defend special interests, but some of those might be the same interests as you have.

SS109 wrote: Lobbyists? AARP has lobbyists, the NRA has lobbyists, even non-profits have lobbyists. Sure they defend special interests, but some of those might be the same interests as you have.

And some lobbyists have very, very deep pockets......like the pharmaceuticals, and the oil companies, and the health insurance industry.......which is why the lobbyists FOR the people try to counter them with numbers of voters.......but do you really think AARP can compete against the Health Insurance companies? If they could we would have a much better part D for medicare.

I still haven't got a clue what you are arguing for, or against here. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but you throw stuff out there and then say nothing about the point you are trying to make. Or maybe there just isn't a point. what does this have to do with the protesters?

LadyJazzer wrote: So, for the knuckle-draggers whose only comment is "Go get a job", the problem is that there are 14 million people chasing 100% of the available jobs...and not finding one. (And if you look at the rest of the charts, it's obvious that the failed "trickle-down economics" hasn't created jobs since the Bush tax-cuts went into place; and if their only solution is "let the rich keep more--it will trickle down in the form of new jobs," they are as empty as they have been since they took over a booming economy in 2001 and destroyed it.)

Your view of history has been rewritten LJ. The economy wasn't booming when Bush took office in January of 2001 - the dot-com bubble burst, business outlays and investments were in decline and the 9/11 attack pretty well put the nail in the coffin and pushed the nation into recession. Sans the 9/11 attack we might have been able to avoid a recession, but narrowly avoiding a recession and a booming economy are not in any way analogous situations.

Remind me again, how many jobs were created in August of this year? Zero you say? What does that say for the ability of the demand side economic policy to create jobs? It works even less effectively than the demand side economic policy does is what it would tell any person capable of reasoned thought.

The only places one can go to get capital to start a new business or expand an existing one, you know, the things that create jobs, is somewhere that has existing capital to lend or invest. The rich will invest their money someplace, they are not going to keep it under their mattresses. Right now they are investing that capital in federal debt obligations because of the uncertain business climate that the Obama administration has created with its class warfare initiatives. If you want to have it invested in starting and expanding businesses, then you first have to stop offering them more attractive alternatives on where their money will be invested such as federal debt obligations.

Supply creates demand, not the other way around. There was no demand for a smart phone until a company started supplying them. There was no demand for an affordable automobile until someone started supplying them. There was no demand for a calculator for the home until someone started building them. There was no demand for home computers until someone started building them. There was no demand for a television, or a radio, or an electric light until someone started building them. Classic economics - which is to say supply side economics - which is what the regressive left attempts to misrepresent by labeling it "trickle down" is the economic model that has been the creative force behind all of the standard of living improvements that this nation has enjoyed and that propelled it to the top of the civilized world. You can't look for demand to create supply - things simply don't work that way, which is precisely why the Obama administration has yet to reverse the recession that they inherited after 2.5 years and both Bush and Reagan were seeing completely different results within the same time period after their policy was put into effect.

The Bush tax cuts came in 2003, after 2 solid years of tax revenue decline as measured by percentage of GDP. Within a year of those tax rate cuts the tax revenues as a percentage of GDP were rising, and continued to rise. The tax revenues as a percentage of GDP under Obama's plans have stayed flat or declined instead. You tell me which policy was more effective in raising the tax revenues according to the only meaningful manner in which they can be measured. Cutting the tax rates allowed investors to keep more of the rewards for being willing to risk their capital, which gave them more incentive to invest their capital, which expanded the economy, created new jobs and raised the tax revenues as a percentage of GDP. Obama's policies, on the other hand, have investors sitting on the sidelines, investing their capital in safer federal debt obligations which have smaller returns and do nothing to expand the economy. Government is a consumer of resources, not a creator of them. The more resources the government consumes the less of it remains for those who wish to use it for creation.

Cut the spending and cut the tax rates and the economy will expand - increasing the tax revenues along with it as measured by the percentage of GDP they represent. Increase the federal spending, increase the federal deficit, increase the tax rates and the economy, if it expands at all, will not expand as quickly as it would if the reverse were done, which will cause the revenue as a percentage of GDP to either remain flat or to fall. That is what the lessons of history have to teach us.

How's that HOPE and CHANGE working for those Socialist at the Occupy zones?

To fuel the real engine of job creation in this country, I've also proposed eliminating all capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses and start-up companies, and I've proposed an additional tax incentive through next year to encourage new small business investment. It is time to protect the jobs we have and to create the jobs of tomorrow by unlocking the drive, and ingenuity, and innovation of the American people. And we should fast track the loan guarantees we passed for our auto industry and provide more as needed so that they can build the energy-efficient cars America needs to end our dependence on foreign oil.

We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue.

The second part of my rescue plan is to provide immediate relief to families who are watching their paycheck shrink and their jobs and life savings disappear. I've already proposed a middle-class tax cut for 95% of workers and their families, but today I'm calling on Congress to pass a plan so that the IRS will mail out the first round of those tax cuts as soon as possible. We should also extend and expand unemployment benefits to those Americans who have lost their jobs and are having a harder time finding new ones in this weak economy. And we should stop making them pay taxes on those unemployment insurance benefits as well.

OBAMA October 13, 2008 3 YEARS AGO

archer wrote:

SS109 wrote: Lobbyists? AARP has lobbyists, the NRA has lobbyists, even non-profits have lobbyists. Sure they defend special interests, but some of those might be the same interests as you have.

And some lobbyists have very, very deep pockets......like the pharmaceuticals, and the oil companies, and the health insurance industry.......which is why the lobbyists FOR the people try to counter them with numbers of voters.......but do you really think AARP can compete against the Health Insurance companies? If they could we would have a much better part D for medicare.

I still haven't got a clue what you are arguing for, or against here. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but you throw stuff out there and then say nothing about the point you are trying to make. Or maybe there just isn't a point. what does this have to do with the protesters?

The OWS protestors think they have no power in the current political situation, and I believe you would agree. I would disagree. In 2008, the most liberal sitting Senator became President of the US and passed the biggest healthcare change in US history. This same President has increased corporate regulations, decreased drilling, and created a anti-business administration.

Sure, the OWS people aren't getting everything they want, but their hero Barack is very sympathetic to their views.

The charts are the charts... They tell the truth. The truth is STILL that after 8 years of Bush tax-cuts that were supposed to be temporary (for 10 years), and were supposed to "create jobs", Bush created a total of 1.3 million jobs in 8 years; and Clinton created 23.1 million. Spin, spin, spin, Skippy... Bush didn't create anything except TWO unnecessary wars, an unfunded $750 BILLION drug bill for the pharma industry, and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Oh, and thanks for the {blah}, {blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah},{blah}, regurgitation of the usual empty Sovereign Citizen bull***t. I paid about as much attention to it as I usually do.