Occupy Wallstreet

Wonder if the people of the anti-rich, anti-capitalist set realize that the wealthy folks that they are disparaging pay for the entitlement programs they enjoy. I suppose that point is lost on them.
Nearly 50% of the American public pay no income tax and the wealthiest 20 percent pay 50% of the taxes paid. They are financing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,student loans and grants,
pork projects, road and bridge building projects, public tv and radio and even Planned Parenthood, just to name a few. By their own admission, the occupiers aren’t contributing. I guess the socialists won’t be happy until they destroy capitalism and create a truly socialist state……maybe like the wildly successful Cuba and East Germany.
One college age protester that I saw being interviewed stated that the goal was the “total dismantlement of the capitalist system”. When asked what it would be replaced with, the kid just stood there with a totally blank look. Not a clue!!!

13 thoughts on “Occupy Wallstreet”

  1. Interesting. I paid into Social Security all my adult working life and thought I paid for what I am receiving as a retiree. It’s good to know it was really some billionaires who are funding my retirement. Or are these the same Wallstreet billionaires whose corporate greed and crooked investments caused the stock market to bottom with the result that I lost a significant amount it my private retirement investments? Thank goodness G.W. Bush wasn’t able to turn Social Security over to the Wallstreet crowd. Go Wallstreet protesters!

  2. those wall street protesters sure do stir up a lot of reactions. positive and negative. seems people can make up their minds about the wall street protesters before they know what they are favoring. in fact. can somebody say exactly what they are for. post a link maybe.

  3. Actually, Oldtimer, you and I didn’t pay for the SS we are receiving. We paid for the people that retired before us. We are now dependent those that are paying now. Kinda like a Ponsi scheme. So yes, those billionaires are helping to pay our retirement. It’s interesting that you don’t fault Congress for their roll in the economic problems. They are just as much to blame.
    Mousie, I listened to interviews with the protesters on various networks. There seemed to be a common thread to me, redistribution of wealth.. Do we really need a Website to tell us what is going on? Aren’t we capable of watching and listening to the people that make up the protest and forming an opinion?

  4. If we put money in a savings account and the bank lends it out. Then we withdraw it. I don’t see how saying that I am being funded for my withdrawal by someone who has just recently placed money in their savings account. Hardly a “Ponsi scheme”. Of course billionaires are helping to provide the money flow for my withdrawal from Soc. Sec. but so are millionaires, throusandaires, the average working bloke, etc.
    By “redistribution of wealth” (a conservative term) I believe we are merely trying to go back to the income tax rates that we in effect before Bush’s tax cuts. Certainly it is not a redistribution of wealth as the wealthy will still have plenty of disposable income and cash in the bank.
    Mousie, you won’t find much information on what the Wallstreet protests are about from watching TV, especially Fox News. Those protesters interviewed seem not to be the most articulate people, but their statements grab the viewers attention. Still, many of those interviewed seem more rational than those tea party members that have been interviewed in the past. Personally I know several people who have gone to NY or D.C. to protest and they are quite articulate in why they are going. One rather long source is : http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 A major fault as I see it of the article is that it does not focus on the Wallstreet lending greed in the housing market that was a large precipitant of our economic crisis.

  5. Your comments liking a savings account to SS would be correct if there was a savings account. The Social Security Trust fund is empty except for IOU’s left by the Government you seem to have so much faith in. They have raided it extensively. So now we are not drawing from a trust fund but are funded by the people paying SS taxes now. That money comes from the General Fund. I believe that there are only 2.9 people per retiree paying in at this point in time. Years ago there were about 168 per retiree. So yes, it is becoming a Ponsi scheme. And yes, others than the wealthy are paying but you are missing the point I made or are ignoring it.
    The point I made is that while liberals and the Occupiers are disparaging the wealthy, which according to our President are folks making $250,000 and up, they neglect acknowledge that the “wealthy” are paying 50 percent of the taxes and are funding much of the entitlement programs and the rest of the government’s activities.. 50% of the American population pay no income tax but enjoy the benefits. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me.
    If we are to go back to the tax rates before Bush, why just the rates for the wealthy? Return the rates for everyone. People forget that that Bush tax cut was for everyone, not just the “wealthy”. The only reason the liberals disliked the tax cut then was because the “wealthy” weren’t excluded. Now they like to pretend that the wealthy were the only ones that got the tax cut.

  6. While Rick Perry loves to use the provocative term “Ponzi scheme” to typify Social Security, he should look at a dictionary occasionally. A Ponzi scheme is one devised by perpetrators who pocket the money obtained by fraud from later investors. Because those in congress who originally created Soc Sec did not personally pocket any of the money, the term is inaccurate and merely inflammatory.

    You are quite right that the supper wealthy pay the larges portion of the FIT. However, as this chart indicates, they are pocketing more earned money than ever before. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-income-made-by-and-the-taxes-paid-by-the-rich-in-one-graph/2011/05/09/AF2LmtzG_blog.html So I guess paying a higher FIT has not hurt them too much. Furthermore, those low income people who are railed at for not paying FIT do pay sales taxes in most states and all of their income is immediately returned to the economy via their spending their money on the necessities of life. This in contrast to those making the highest incomes who invest much of their income in investments, e.g., the stock market, that does not return the money immediately to the work-a-day economy.

  7. This will be my last comment on this subject. There will always be someone making more and having more than others…at all levels. Right now your focus is on the very wealthy and the liberals believing they have the right to demand a share it their money with out doing anything to deserve it.
    So after, we liberate the rich from their money (and finding out it didn’t really do much to change things) do we then move down the ladder to the “comfortable” and demand their money too. Next would it be the ” getting by”? Because they will still be doing better than someone.
    The welfare state that this country has become has taken away peoples sense of pride and determination. Instead of wanting to succeed by learning and working hard, by being self reliant and have pride in your accomplishment and being willing to start at the bottom and working your way up, like so many of us did, they feel entitled to share other people’s successes just because they were born.
    If being self reliant, financially responsible, being proud of earning you own way, helping the truly needy and being personally responsible for your actions are no long values to respect, then the future seems pretty bleak.
    You got the last word…….

  8. Well, perhaps this will be my last comment on this subject too.
    Of course some people, rich and not so rich, will go after money without having to work too hard for it. However, it is a great error to assume that the not so rich are by and large demanding money without deserving it. The 99% are endeavoring to have law makers shore up the practices of the lending institutions so that their hard earned houses will not continue to be taken away from them because the house crash has lowered their property value to the point where they are in default of paying their montages because they have lost their jobs (although WANTING to find a decent enough job to meet their bills). Also the not so rich (again, the 99%) as well as some of the rich with a conscience are appalled that the average tax payer is being asked to pay for the financial aid to the lending institutions when the institutions themselves have not been asked to change their duplicitous financial/lending practices.
    Finally, many rich, very rich, people such as Warren Buffett believe that they have been very fortunate in life and should in all good conscience return a larger percentage of what they make to their country via FIT than the average person. Many of these fortunate people view the excess incomes earned by many of the CEOs to be obscene.
    If one takes the time to listen to what the Occupy Wallstreet people are saying, it’s not that they want to take the money away from the very rich. But that the FIT levels be returned to previous BB (before Bush) levels, that lawmakers DO SOMETHING about the criminal lending/financial practices of Wallstreet, and that the government do something about creating jobs for them. These changes would go a long way in helping people be, as you said, “self reliant, financially responsible, being proud of earning you own way, helping the truly needy and being personally responsible for your actions”. If the very rich have finally succeeded in having the financial and manufacturing companies in the US set up so that the very rich continue to become obscenely rich and middle class and the have-nots poorer, indeed, the future does seem to be pretty bleak.

  9. Even as a libertarian, I’m concerned about inequality. Not so much the inequality that comes from free men and women spending their money as they choose (what made Steve Jobs a billionaire). Rather, I’m concerned about the inequality that comes from the wealthy corrupting the government. The cure is not to make the government ever more powerful and hope it won’t get corrupted. The cure is less government. Capitalists fear other capitalists who will take their wealth through competition. They don’t fear the government if they know they can corrupt they government.

  10. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to make “less government”. So and how would less government look in reality and how would that work to correct the current effects brought on by the crooked financial market, the cost of endless wars, and the still high rate of unemployment?

  11. We’re so used to the nanny state being there to wipe our noses that this is hard to envision, but: in a libertarian society: 1. There would be no bailouts of crooked bankers because there would be no government making them too big to fail. 2. There would be no endless wars because the military would be purely defensive, with no capability or charter to go fight those wars. 3. The unemployment rate would be of utter unconcern. Free men and women would enter into employment at their own discretion. The government would only enforce their contracts.

  12. Libertarian– what do you mean by “The government would only enforce their contracts.”? Aside from this comment, your points seem fairly anarchist in nature, that is, advocating the abolishment of government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *