Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Occupy Wall Street


Navyblue

Recommended Posts

Speaking of education, you misspelled 'protesters' twice. How are the %1 good? They fund politicians, and the politicians give them tax breaks in return. Willing to bet anything that guy is apart of some big business that has funded some politician that has was in favor of tax breaks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Schiff: In Defense Of The 1%

Peter Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital

October 30, 2011

Last week, I spent the afternoon visiting the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in lower Manhattan. I brought a film crew and a sign that said "I Am The 1%, Let's Talk." The purpose was to understand what was motivating these protesters and try to educate them about what caused the financial crisis. I went down there with the feeling that much of their anger was justified, but broadly misdirected.

Indeed, there were plenty of heated discussions. I did little more than ask how much of my earnings I should be allowed to keep. In return, I was called an idiot, a fool, heartless, and selfish. But when we started talking about the issues, it seemed like the protesters fell into two categories: those who generally understood and agreed that Washington caused this mess, and those who could only recite Marxist talking points. It was the latter that usually resorted to calling names once I pointed out the hypocrisy of their positions. They might shout, "the banks have taken over the regulatory agencies, so we need more regulations!" Obviously, this is paradoxical. If they're blaming government for causing this problem, why would they suggest more government as the solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other tool the government didn't have to use against us back then was the Federal Reserve. Even if we drastically reduce taxes, the Fed might decide to do what it has been doing: printing money to finance government profligacy. This acts as a secret tax on everyone with a bank account, and is critical in transferring wealth from hardworking Americans to politically connected elites. So, really, the protests shouldn't be on Wall Street but around the corner on the ironically named Liberty Street, site of the New York Federal Reserve Bank – the heart of the untenable system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one succeeds in a vacuum. Consider the late Steve Jobs. He became a billionaire by sharing his wealth. Think about the millions of people around the world whose lives are vastly better because of Apple products. Think of all the Apple employees who benefit from high-paying jobs. Think about all those investors who got rich on Apple stock. Steve Jobs shared his wealth with the entire planet before ever paying one dime in taxes. In fact, any money Steve Jobs did pay in taxes likely prevented him from creating and sharing even more wealth. Had Jobs tried to hoard his wealth instead, he never would have acquired it in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter says that the government is to blame? Okay, he doesn't think more regulation is needed, as opposed to less? Well, part of the reason for the mess is because of that. Look at how Canada's banks fared vs. America's in that scenario, Canada's didn't need to be bailed out.

The reason the burbs of D.C. are wealthier is because the honchos of the defense industry live there and make big money off the military industrial complex. What would Peter do if there's major cutbacks on America's military that affects these companies, sell off his holdings in these companies?

Didn't he just divide them into to groups that were the ones that agreed with capitalism ("the vast majority"), and the others were "dirty commies"? So why is he generalizing now?

Didn't he say earlier that it was all D.C's fault, not Wall Streets, but he now has to work 2x harder because they're being propped up? Contradict much?

If "the major banks had no business lobbying Washington", how is that the fault of the government? He says they have no business doing it, but apparently he thinks they do now, and yet if it did happen, he doesn't want to pay taxes to bail them out, right? But he doesn't want more government regulation, so one could assume that if the government passed stricter limits on campaign contributions, and lobbying, he wouldn't want the kind of control and influence that would keep Wall Street in check. In short, he seems to want it both ways: unbridled capitalism, unless he himself has to pay taxes for it when the bubble bursts because the banks are "too big to fail", but Wall Street is in no way to blame for the mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, you have to learn more about him than just reading that one article and making assumptions about him.

He:

- doesn't want federal reserves (return to gold standard);

- doesn't think bailouts should have been handed out, so taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook (and also profit are for owners/shareholders only);

- is paying 70% because he's a business owner and thus being double-taxed (example I wrote before);

- government shouldn't be involved in business

- business shouldn't get involved with government

- people should be saving more money (Austrian vs Kenysian)

- government should spend what it can afford only

- rather have higher consumption tax instead of income tax

- a truly free capitalist economy will correct itself

- is "Republican" but he's more like a "Economic Libertianist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money that remains in the company is whatever that's left after paying taxes.

The amount paid in taxes below 380000 is still way less than the amount he has to pay after that bracket.

I'm gonna use rounded numbers, since it's easier.

< 10000 @ 10% = 1000

< 45000 @ 15% = 6750

< 120000 @ 25% = 30000

< 195000 @ 28% = 54600

< 380000 @ 33% = 125400

> 380000 @ 35% = 1267000

Total below the 35% bracket, he pays 217750, which is just 17% of his overall tax. To be slightly more accurate then, that guy pays 31.67% or $1484750 in just income tax.

Of course corporate tax and income tax are separate, but what if he's the sole owner of the company? HIS company has to pay tax (he gets less money), and there's income tax (he gets less money).... if he chooses to invest with his own income he has to pay capital gains tax on that (once again he's losing money).

Sure, there are certain ways he can pay less taxes, but there are also certain other governmental fees he has to pony up, so the just basically even out.

Basically the point I'm trying to get across is that a guy like Peter Schiff and his company are already forking over tons of money to the government, way more than the average person from the so-called "99%".... and people still think folks like him should be playing MORE? It's guys like him that's the engine of the economy, and if the government punishes him for being successful, there will be less incentive for those business to remain in the USA. That company can easily move to another country, so now not only that corporate tax revenue is gone, his income tax is gone, capital tax is gone, and those jobs are gone too (those employees' taxes).

Yeah, people complain how "the few" are controlling most of the wealth, but they also fail to remember is that they produce most of the wealth and government revenue. To see the situation different, the 99% needs to start pulling their weight.

A very important thing to realize, economics isn't political, it's mathematical.

I guess we agree for the most part, except for the part where Peter should be dinged just because he can afford it. The money in his pocket and everyone else's pocket is for yours to keep, not for the government (or others) to take.

I mean, I can live with just 1 kidney, but it doesn't mean the government should be mandating that we be forced to give up one of then, just because someone says, "oh well, s/he can afford it".

It's funny how those people thinks North Korea is better than South Korea, lol :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, you have to learn more about him than just reading that one article and making assumptions about him.

He:

- doesn't want federal reserves (return to gold standard);

- doesn't think bailouts should have been handed out, so taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook (and also profit are for owners/shareholders only);

- is paying 70% because he's a business owner and thus being double-taxed (example I wrote before);

- government shouldn't be involved in business

- business shouldn't get involved with government

- people should be saving more money (Austrian vs Kenysian)

- government should spend what it can afford only

- rather have higher consumption tax instead of income tax

- a truly free capitalist economy will correct itself

- is "Republican" but he's more like a "Economic Libertianist"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as how a capitalist society relies on the legal system and its supporting cast to enforce the narrowly defined terms such as liberty, freedom, property rights and so on as they pertain to said system, this is absolute nonsense.

EDIT:

Our market economy cannot be separated from the state. Any attempt to to so is vulgar economics at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making money isn't something to be ashamed off.

Either than "just because they can afford it", I have yet to hear any other good reason why person A should be forced to pay more taxes than person B. As I mentioned before, should I be forced to give up an organ "just because I can afford it"?

The way fiat money is going, most people are gonna be hurt due to the inflation of it. During Weimar Germany, we all hear about how hyperinflation ruined the middle class, but not the upper class as much, you know why? It's because they still own tangible assets whereas the middle class and lower class didn't.

As the trend is going, fiat currency will soon be intangible.

One interesting tidbit...

Back in the 1960's, before Nixon took the US off the gold standard, a gallon of gas cost about a quarter. Currently, a gallon of gas still worth a quarter, assuming you're still using that quarter from the 1960's (and before).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Occupy protests draw eclectic mix across U.S.

By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY

Updated 3h 10m ago

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-06/occupy-protests-outside-metro-areas/51100272/1

It is not your typical cast of protesters: 66-year-old Nancy Pi-Sunyer, a retired teacher from Long Island; numerous 8-year-old school children; and a Christian high school dropout in Boaz, Ala., waving a sign that reads, "Do not rob the poor just because you can."

The Occupy Wall Street movement leans left, young and urban, yet one of the defining features of the protests has been its lack of definition. Protests are popping up in places like Pocatello, Idaho; Kalamazoo, Mich., and Bethany Beach, Del. Political differences don't necessarily matter. And participants range from kids to seniors.

"I've long thought that the only way that change would eventually be effective is if there were some sort of mass action," says Birmingham, Ala., resident Tom Ballock, 62, a reluctant recent retiree who has supported the movement on the street and online.

Sometimes, just one or two supporters gather in front of a downtown bank, Ballock says, but "we've gotten favorable responses from passing motorists — often a horn honk and a wave or raised fist. There are a few who yell 'get a job,' but there appears to be a substantial amount of interest even in conservative Alabama."

The national movement hasn't won over all 99% of the constituency it purports to represent. A CBS News/New York Times poll last month found that 43% of Americans agree with the views of Occupy Wall Street protests, while 27% disagree.

Occupy movement grows

That leaves nearly one-third (30%) unsure. And that is who many outlying Occupiers are trying to reach. In Bakersfield, Calif., events tend to be more educational, less confrontational.

"We didn't want to be an abrasive presence," says Bakersfield resident Lynnette Rena Whygle, 22, who grew up in a blue-collar household and is spearheading local rallies between jobs at Starbucks or babysitting.

Coordinators of Occupy Wall Street say the national movement borrows tactics of the Arab Spring, a wave of demonstrations and civil uprisings that has spread through Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and beyond.

Angus Johnston, a historian of student activism who teaches at the City University of New York, also sees shades of the demonstrations that were held in Wisconsin last winter. College students camped out alongside state workers in the state Capitol to protest Gov. Scott Walker's bill to strip most state workers of their collective bargaining rights.

"We're seeing something similar happening with Occupy Wall Street. A lot of folks are the kinds of people you'd expect to see at a protest, people who know how to do this stuff. But there are a lot of people who don't fit that mold," he says.

A sampling of activity off the beaten path:

In Boaz, Ala., (population 9,551) police last month ticketed nine young adults for protesting without a permit but later dropped charges, says Levi Gideon, 19, a self-employed Web designer and high school dropout. As a Christian, he has used Scriptures to grab the attention of passersby.

"People are more likely to open their mind when you approach them in a way that they have known their whole life," he says.

Reaction has been supportive, he says, but adds that Alabama's tough new immigration law has created some confusion. "We've actually been mistaken for the anti-immigration protest," Gideon says.

In Pocatello, Idaho, (population 54,255), as many as 150 people have shown up at rallies, held twice a week, and snow last Friday didn't deter about 10 protesters who have been camped out since last Wednesday. "Our numbers here pale in comparison to New York but we have a lot of heart," says Scott Richardson, 28, who works full time in customer service and hopes to get a bachelor's degree in physics. He and friends have talked for years about starting a protest movement locally "but we were just waiting for that time to come when the world would start waking up, and it did."

In Bakersfield, Calif., (population 347,483), an influential student group at California State University declined to participate in a walk-out planned for early October, but supported a sit-in a few weeks later that at its height drew about 140 students, including large numbers of Muslim and Hispanic students.

"Most times it's really hard to get anybody to get out on anything, even if it's for any kind of conservative issue," says junior sociology major Ericka Hoffman, 26. "It's interesting to see such an eclectic group pushing for something like this."

While dozens of colleges nationwide held events last week, including teach-ins, students are not leading the Occupy Wall Street movement in many communities, local organizers such as Whygle and Richardson say. And many students say the protests have not changed their minds.

"Absolutely not," says Harvard junior Jeff Homer, 21, co-president of the Harvard Investment Association, a student group. "People looking to go into finance on campus are not being deterred by the protests. It's nothing new that people don't like Wall Street."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayor Bloomberg has used the police to move out OWS protesters.

Shortly after 1 am Tuesday police ordered the OWS protesters to temporarily vacate Zuccotti Park. Mayor Bloomberg's office sent out a message on Twitter at 1:19 a.m. saying: “Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protesters can return after the park is cleared.” Fliers handed out by the police at the private park on behalf of the park’s owner and the city spelled out the same message.

They were given 20 minutes to clear out and then the police moved in to clear them out. There were 200 arrests reported. Journalists were caught up in the sweep - Associated Press writer Karen Matthews was taken into custody Tuesday along with AP photographer Seth Wenig and Daily News reporter Matthew Lysiak.

Ydanis Rodriguez, a New York City Council Member (represents northern Manhattan, is a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement) was also arrested in the raid on Occupy Wall Street whe he rushed to the scene after hearing of the eviction order.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/15/nyc-councilman-ydanis-rodriguez-arrested-during-zuccotti-park-raid/

Oh yeah and it was us dastardly Canadians who interfered with the free speech rights of then thar 'Muricans. I guess the US should stop us furriners from owning property in the Land of the Free, eh?? ;)

New York City's mayor said the occupation had increasingly posed a health and fire hazard, and on Monday, the Canadian owners of the park, Brookfield Properties, had asked the city to assist in enforcing the rules forbidding sleeping and camping.

“But make no mistake,” Bloomberg said, “the final decision to act was mine and mine alone.”

"The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out. But it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park or otherwise take it over to the exclusion of others, nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law."

BBC video:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15736497

Hundreds of police officers in riot gear raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment in New York City in the pre-dawn darkness Tuesday, evicted hundreds of demonstrators and demolished the tent city that was the epicenter of a movement protesting what participants call corporate greed and economic inequality.

The police action began around 1 a.m. and lasted several hours as officers with batons and plastic shields pushed the protesters from their base at Zuccotti Park. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said around 200 people were arrested, including dozens who tried to resist the eviction by linking arms in a tight circle at the center of the park. A member of the City Council was among those arrested during the sweep.

Tents, sleeping bags and equipment were carted away, and by 4:30 a.m., the park was empty. It wasn’t clear what would happen next to the demonstration, though the new enforcement of rules banning tents, sleeping bags or tarps would effectively end an encampment that started in mid-September.

“At the end of the day, if this movement is only tied to Liberty Plaza, we are going to lose. We’re going to lose,” said Sandra Nurse, one of the organizers, referring to the park by the nickname the demonstrators have given it. “Right now the most important thing is coming together as a body and just reaffirm why we’re here in the first place.”

Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan as the workday began, chanting and looking for a new space to gather. A state court judge called an 11:30 a.m. hearing on the legality of the eviction, following an emergency appeal by the National Lawyers Guild, and issued a temporary restraining order barring the city from preventing protesters from re-entering the park.

As of late morning, though, the park remained a flip-flopped version of how it looked the day before. A phalanx of officers commanded the square, which had been scrubbed with power washers, while protesters marched around them on the sidewalk, chanting “Whose park? Our park.”

The surprise action came two days short of the two-month anniversary of the encampment. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he ordered the sweep because health and safety conditions had become “intolerable” in the crowded plaza.

“From the beginning, I have said that the city has two principal goals: guaranteeing public health and safety, and guaranteeing the protesters’ First Amendment rights,” he said. “But when those two goals clash, the health and safety of the public and our first responders must be the priority.”

He said that people would be allowed to return as soon as this morning, but that the city would begin enforcing the rules set up by the park’s private owners banning camping equipment.

That left demonstrators wondering what to do next. There was talk among some Tuesday of trying to occupy another park or plaza, and a small group of protesters rallied at a park on Canal Street, north of the financial district that’s home to Zuccotti Park.

The eviction began in the dead of night, as police officers arrived by the hundreds and set up powerful klieg lights to illuminate the block.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/city-zuccotti-park-owners-order-protesters-to-leave-until-park-has-been-cleaned/2011/11/15/gIQATLePNN_story.html

And here is Zuccotti Park once cleared:

An-empty-and-closed-Zucco-007.jpg

There has been an injunction obtained but its effect and implementation is under review. The police on orders of the mayor are refusing to comply with the injunction to permit the protesters back on site with tents and camping gear.

The National Lawyers Guild says it has obtained an injunction preventing the city from enforcing the park rules on the protesters.

"We are ready to reopen the park," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a morning press conference, "but understand there is a court order which we have not actually received.…

"The park will remain closed until we can clarify that situation. I want to stress that our intention was to reopen the park and let people go in to express their First Amendment rights to protest."

The mayor said the city would go to court immediately concerning the injunction obtained by lawyers for the protesters. A state court judge called an 11:30 a.m. hearing on the legality of the surprise eviction.

...

Police began to allow protesters to return to the park shortly after 8 a.m. after first checking they were not carrying camping gear, but then halted their entry after determining that a court order was in place.

Judge Lucy Billings who issued the injunction has been removed from the roster of judges who will hear any appeal or similar cases. Court officials said her name would not be on a random generator of judges to be assigned to the case, because Billings usually works on real-estate cases. But it's no surprise that the OWS lawyers woke her up in the middle of the night – for 25 years before becoming a judge, she was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Here is the NY Daily News report of how the injunction was obtained - US-style judge shopping at its finest. :lol:

INSIDE THE RESTRAINING ORDER PROTESTERS GOT ALLOWING THEM BACK INTO THE PARK:

FROM OUR REPORTERS BARBARA ROSS AND TRACY CONNOR

When the cops raided Zuccotti Park, lawyers for Occupy Wall Street immediately woke up a judge with a civil liberties background and asked for help. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lucy Billings signed an early-morning order temporarily barring cops from keeping protesters and tents out of Zuccotti Park.

WHO IS JUSTICE LUCY BILLINGS?

But within hours, she was off the case as court administrators prepared to randomly choose a new judge — and excluded Billings’ name from the list of candidates.

Billings’ biography notes that before she became a judge in 1997, she spent 25 years as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “I have devoted my career to public service, especially the disadvantaged in desperate circumstances,” she wrote in a 2007 pre-election statement.

Lawyers for Occupy Wall Street phoned Billings after cops moved into Zuccotti Park early Tuesday, evicted the protesters and got rid of their tents and other camp equipment. Asked why they called her first, protest lawyer Daniel Alterman wouldn’t say, remarking that he’s not a “gossip guy.” The lawyers also called an emergency hotline set up to assign judges to after-hours cases

A staffer told them that since Billings had already been contacted, she should handle the Zuccotti matter. He said Billings came to the lawyers and at 6:30 a.m. signed an order declaring cops cannot evict protesters who aren’t breaking the law or stop protesters from entering with tents. Billings’ involvement will be short-lived.

At 11:30 a.m., court officials were scheduled to use a computer program to pick a new judge for an afternoon hearing on the restraining order — the proceeding that will determine if the tents can be erected again. Billings’ name will not be included because she usually handles real estate cases, court officials said.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC/18724990#ixzz1do5x1YLG

Protesters have attempted to establish another encampment at nearby Duarte Square but police have moved in to stop them according to the UK newspaper The Guardian:

At Duarte Square police in riot gear have just moved in and arrested at least a dozen protesters who had scaled a fenced-off area and sought to occupy it. The area was private property. Officers were watched by several hundred fellow protesters shouting: shame, shame. The arrested people were rounded up inside the fenced off area and are being taken to a waiting police bus. It is clear that NYPD is going to have a zero tolerance policy towards any attempt to set up a new Zuccotti-style encampment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l-LRs9BpMY

Another hearing has now been held in New York State Supreme Court and a decision is pending.

Douglas Flaum, acting for Brookfield properties. the park's owner, told the judge that the park "was never meant to be a tented city". He went on: "There are health and safety concerns that the city must address. The primary issue is the collection of tents and Brookfield properties has liability obligations."

He said the company had received numerous complaints from members of the community living near by, and it had simply passed those concerns to the city to deal with and to enforce the rules.

These notices are now posted around Zuccotti Park stating that the park hours are now 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. And that camping, putting up tents, lying on the ground, or on benches, is prohibited:

3a7d5e53-ac10-4d25-a7b7-9426901b7f15_500.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...