published Thursday, October 20th, 2011

Occupy Wall Street

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

135
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Is Bennett going for some kind of record string of cartoons on the same subject with this voice of the fleabagger stuff?

October 20, 2011 at 12:02 a.m.
librul said...

Perfect illustration of the situation, Clay!

But the voices of the 99 persent will not be silenced until the greed of the 1 percent is driven from our land and they come to fully understand that the reason for the growing global discontent rests with them alone.

October 20, 2011 at 12:26 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

The ones who defend and idolize the one-percenters are on the bottom of the other shoe. They're just too stupid to realize it.

October 20, 2011 at 2:13 a.m.
ricardo said...

It's time for the idol worship of the 1% to stop. They have done nothing recently to create jobs, despite the lowest tax rates in history.

October 20, 2011 at 2:48 a.m.
steve_smith said...

What is the one percent-ers' fair share? How will OWS know when to quit?

October 20, 2011 at 2:53 a.m.
EaTn said...

The 1% of the world now control 40% of the world's wealth, as released in yesterday's news. The 99% are waking up slowly. The OWS movement in this country is like an infant learning to crawl and will be walking and talking very soon. The current politicians and fat-cat backers are clueless and will be swamped like a tsunami.

October 20, 2011 at 5:06 a.m.
fairmon said...

The 1% is a diversion tactic. Take 100% of the wealth from the most wealthy in the land (the 1%) and it won't cover the annual budget deficit for one year. Why are our elite leaders not looking for ways to increase the wealth of the 99% though jobs, quit running off the good jobs. Increasing rates on the wealthy may be a good thing but in the big picture it is a joke. It is dishonest to suggest it will reverse the slide we are in.

October 20, 2011 at 5:10 a.m.
fairmon said...

If the top 20% that pays 80% of all income tax paid could pay more but if taxed too much who will invest in and enable businesses to grow? Who will invest in a new business? How do you decide what their fair share is when 49% pay zero income taxes and those with the lowest income get a refund that exceeds what they paid. Thinking that either party gives a rip about the middle, lower and no income people is being naive.

October 20, 2011 at 5:17 a.m.
EaTn said...

BRP referred to the movement as fleabaggers. Actually this is a compliment and a very good comparison--fleas and dogs. Did you ever see a dog with one or two fleas--very uncomfortable. When the dog gets invaded by 99 fleas, ouch watch out. The fleas also invade fat-cats.

October 20, 2011 at 6:01 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha. But the CEO of the world's biggest, most indebted, most job-shedding company is a card-carrying liberal. His 'jobs plan' is to take more money from people who have earned it, or from future generations, and buy votes with it--a proven failure the first time he tried it. Yeah, there's corporate welfare, and the ins writing regulations to keep the outs out; the OWS mob probably has some genuine grievances. But coveting is sin; repent.

October 20, 2011 at 6:37 a.m.
EaTn said...

Here's an eye opener. Both the right-baggers and left-baggers have similar concerns--both agree that DC is controlled by special interests and needs to be taken back by the people. True they differ in specifics, but it's the politicians and special interests that are afraid both groups may realize the possibilities of working together.

October 20, 2011 at 7:25 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said... But coveting is sin; repent.

Right! But, coveting is the engine that drives free-market capitalism. So, how can we repent and still function in this economy, Andrew?

October 20, 2011 at 7:25 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Amazing cartoon. How long did it take you to draw that persian rug? Pretty good, Clay.

Ricardo is spot on with his comment. Our society equates money with happiness. There is not one study that shows this true; yet, marketing has framed the 1% to somehow have better lives than the rest of the world. The reality is the 1% are not trickling down their wealth nor are they creating jobs. Their greed and stinginess means we have to tax them more or what the rest of us are taxed, since they have no conscience to care about anyone but themselves. The 1% don't deserve preferential treatment. They aren't God. Enough with the worship!

October 20, 2011 at 7:43 a.m.
EaTn said...

sandyonsignal said...

"Amazing cartoon. How long did it take you to draw that persian rug? "

Maybe he took his artist skills into the twenty-first century.

October 20, 2011 at 7:54 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

NUMBERS NEVER LIE

Harp missed the point (again) with this statement: Take 100% of the wealth from the most wealthy in the land (the 1%) and it won't cover the annual budget deficit for one year.

No one is talking about doing that. That is not the point.

Here's the point: A billionaire should not pay a lower tax rate than a bus driver.

Here's another: Big tax breaks for fat cats has not strengthened the economy. It has helped to ruin it. The same argument was made by the same regressive republicans when Clinton passed his budget in 1993 which raised marginal tax rates on the wealthy around 3%. They predicted the collapse of Wall Street, soaring unemployment, and the death of capitalism.

Didn't happen.

Everyone did better in the 90s. Under the Clinton tax policy, the U.S. economy added 22,000,000 million new jobs. Plus no federal deficit. Plus no Wall Street bailouts.

Under the Bush trickle down tax policy, the economy barely added 1,000,000 new jobs. Plus a massive federal deficit. Plus GDP SHRINKING at a rate of 9% per year.

I cannot understand how regressives can keep making the same arguments without a shred of evidence to back their case. It reminds me of law school: when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the table.

October 20, 2011 at 8:01 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Thank god for people like AndrewLohr. He always gives a Christian, Bible-oriented view to these troubled times we live in. Thanks be to Jeezus for people like him. Yes, coveting is sin, indeed. Amen, brother Andrew! My sorry liberal ass covets the zillions of dollars those good Christian rich folk have and I wish I could be more like them. Yes, I admit it: I COVET! I want a zillion damn dollars and I want jets and yachts and a dozen houses and a football team. I want what they got and I want it baaaaad! Ooooh, you got me pegged for the liberal covetous marxist I am, brother Andrew.

Of course, JC himself said that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. But he must have been talking about rich Muslims or something, not rich Americans, his modern-day "chosen" people. If JC were here today I'm sure he would be escorted in a limo, flown around the globe in his own private jet, and mocking the poor, unemployed, and uninsured for being so stupid and lazy, just like the Republicans are doing.

Thanks to your biblical point of view, I was inspired to look in the "good book," the inerrant word of God, for some soul refreshment. I happened to come across this bit of wisdom from our creator, in Deuteronomy 20:10-14:

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

I see where you get your wisdom from, AndrewLohr. A good book, indeed. This God you worship seems pretty cool. He don't take no BS from nobody. Damned if he isn't a libertarian! I have seen the light, brother Andrew. Teach me to hate with the same passion that you and your God do. And let's spread this hate...er. wisdom... throughout the land.

Jeezus is a comin'.

He's a comin' out the sky.

Not on a cloud but

in a corporate jet he'll fly.

He'll be singin' allelujah,

sayin' hear me, hear me well:

all you rich, join me in heaven,

all you poor souls, go to hell.

Amen.

October 20, 2011 at 8:10 a.m.

This is like a broken record! Paleeeeeeeease!

Harp is right on.

You could take everything "the wealthy" own and it wouldn't make a dent. It would make the class envy crowd happy, but then they'd find something else to complain about.

I'm convinced Clay Bennett's only purpose is to help the Democratic Party. Other left leaning cartoonists are more equal opportunity criticizers, not him, his purpose is to make them look good no matter what.

This movement is pure class envy and mostly about getting the president a second term. It's also about taking the heat off of the president.

Are Democrats and Obama willing to not take money from bankers, corporations or financiers? No, they're not. If this was a real movement, instead of an attempt to help Obama and the Democrats, then none of the crowd would support Obama, because they would see he's part of what they're "protesting" about. This is mostly a hatefest against the Republican Party.

Obama is supporting this Occupy crowd, yet at the same time he's gladly taking piles of money from "the wealthy". How blind can you be!

This is soooooooo transparent! Obama and biden, are out there accussing anyone who doesn't support them of racism or wanting crime and rape to get worse. It would be nice to have a couple of statesman as president and vice-president, instead we have a couple of guys who are behaving like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

October 20, 2011 at 8:13 a.m.
BobMKE said...

The National Democratic Party can’t be happy with the protesters as this tactic was tried in the late 60’s and it did not work then. All the National GOP has to do is provide their candidates with videos of the protesters and the voters will not approve of what they see. The protesters are making outrages demands, showing that they want a nanny state, are stealing from each other, a lot of them look like the 60’s hippies, a lot of them are pissing and defecating in public, and this has turned off the vast majority of the people because they do not behave that way. The Socialist, Communist, and Nazi parties, and other fringe groups have joined in with the protesters. Then the President, Reid, and Pelosi back them up. What a way to get votes. Back in the 60’s when Eugene McCarty was running for President the Democratic Party knew that the protesters were hurting their platform, so they came out with the saying; “Be/Go clean for Gene.” They knew back then the problems the protesters were causing and they did not win elections in 1967 giving us Richard Nixon. Being a Conservative I’m happy about all of this but it amazes me that people can be that stupid and are trying tactics that did not work in the past.

October 20, 2011 at 8:31 a.m.
fairmon said...

BW48 sais...

Harp missed the point (again) with this statement: Take 100% of the wealth from the most wealthy in the land (the 1%) and it won't cover the annual budget deficit for one year.

I didn't suggest not increasing tax rates on the wealthy I could care less one way or another. It will have no effect on the economy, it will not create one job. Do you really think increasing the rates will have the same effect as in the Clinton years?

The point is Obama is a poor leader but a savvy politician that is getting people to take a narrow view of the economy. However, if he would check out the opposition he has little to worry about.

October 20, 2011 at 8:36 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

BobMKE, you can marginalize the hippies all day long, but it wasn't the hippies that created this mess we are in today. It was the conservative, Friedman -worshipping Republicans. You own it. You and your ilk are the reasons for war, pollution, unemployment, and deregulation of the financials. Go ahead and try to marginalize the 99% again which includes: Marine Veterans, Airline Pilots, school teachers, college students and the middle class. Your only support will be from Mayor Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, for some reason I don't think you are really in that group. There is a reason they are called the 1%. Quit shilling for the Fat Cats.

October 20, 2011 at 8:42 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

PICK ONE

Let's leave partisan politics out of the equation. You have two options. Which would you chose?

PLAN A:

Thriving economy. 22,000,000 new jobs. Paying DOWN the national debt.

PLAN B:

Shrinking economy. 1,000,000 new jobs. Soaring national debt.

October 20, 2011 at 8:43 a.m.
TinaFrench said...

Is BRP spewing the same BS day in and day out? You betcha.

October 20, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.

Claydunce is the squeeky wheel. Alprova, sandy, and librul are the cards in the spokes making the dull noise.

Come back here tomorrow and it'll be the same. And the next day, and the day after next...

October 20, 2011 at 9:25 a.m.
limric said...

The biggest demand at Occupy Wall Street is to get Big Money out of politics. And thankfully, the protests are spreading throughout the country.

As the protests continue to grow, the media is increasingly taking notice. Yet many of these media outlets (TFP included) are insisting on referring to the protests as “anti-capitalist.” Here are just a few examples:

– The Washington Post: wrote, “New York’s budding anti-capitalism protest movement began last month with a vague sense of grievance over the widening gap between the rich and poor in America.”

– Fox News: “Anti-Capitalist Protests Spread Across America."

– The New York Daily News: Referred to the demonstrators as “anti-capitalist protesters” who were targeting “corporate greed.”

Even pseudo progressive outlets are referring to the protests as “anti-capitalist.”

– Mediaite: Referred to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations as “vaguely left-wing, anti-capitalist protesters.”

There are indeed some anti-capitalist protesters among the people at Occupy Wall Street, just as there are protesters against any number of other causes, which are the norm at most mass protests. Some of the protesters are even supporters (myself to a certain degree) of Rep. Ron Paul.

But the actual principle of the demonstrations is to speak with moral clarity of the economic inequality of our current system. The purpose is not to attack capitalism but rather an industry whose wealth is guarded and protected by government intervention — backed up by trillions of dollars of taxpayer money through programs like the TARP and near-zero interest Federal Reserve lending — a form of government intervention that the banking industry received but millions of foreclosed on homeowners and debt-laden students did not.

What Wall Street and corporate America is practicing is not capitalism. We are being told that WE must bear the costs of their misdeeds. Today we have a system where we socialize losses and privatize gains. That’s not capitalism. That’s not a market economy. That’s a distorted economy, it is corporate socialism – pure and simple.

The popular offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the slogan “We Are The 99 Percent” — referring to an economic struggle between 99 percent of Americans and the super-rich 1 percent. These Americans aren’t Marxist radicals nor are they anti-capitalist ideologues. They, like most Americans, are angry about being squeezed by an unjust economy wrecked by Wall Street’s criminal misdeeds, corporate outsourcing and enabled by their wholly owned subsidiary, the US government.

October 20, 2011 at 10:09 a.m.
kingofDeetown said...

That's an awfully big nose you put on that WS banker Clay. I've watched hours of 99%'er/ OWS interviews and rants on YouTube, now it has become readily apparent what "banker" is code for in this leftist radical-speak.

October 20, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
hambone said...

BobMKE, Your a little off. McCarthy ran against Nixon in 1972.

That was the year that gave us Watergate. Nixon bugging the DNC hdqrs. to get an advantage. Which was the dumbest thing ever done in politics. There was no way McCarthy was going to beat Nixon.

October 20, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
NGAdad said...

limric: Very well said. I can add nothing more substantive.

KindofNada: If the character had a small nose, broad nose, or big ears would you be disappointed, and devoid of an intelligent argument? You obviously haven't ever been on a debate team.

My point is... Hungry? Eat Bankers! I rest my case.

October 20, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.
kingofDeetown said...

@NGAdud, Editorial cartoons are a visual medium are they not? While not a Russian formalist, I am bound and encouraged in discussing the ideas within the confines of its depiction to a degree (or at least acknowledging them), no?

Debate team you mention? Let's see- You can't and don't choose to argue or refute what I've stated or implied so you. . . attack me personally with the assumption that I have never participated in a debate team? Brilliant ad hominem there NGAdud, I think your personal debate team just lost with the worst of all the logical fallacies- or to return your ad hominem (and perhaps more appropriately): 'phallacies.'

October 20, 2011 at 11:17 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Why are our elite leaders not looking for ways to increase the wealth of the 99% though jobs, quit running off the good jobs. Increasing rates on the wealthy may be a good thing but in the big picture it is a joke. It is dishonest to suggest it will reverse the slide we are in.”

The answer to your question is rather obvious, Harp3339. It’s because the primary focus of our “elite leaders” as you say, has been on accommodating the needs of the corporate, ultra rich, and wealthy financial investment sectors. In other words, the needs of America's middle class has been neglected and continues to be neglected.

In the big picture, the Bush Tax cuts did not benefit America's middle class; it only paved the way for the rich to become richer. Deregulation of the rules and laws of the financial industry did not benefit the middle class; it only enabled the greedy and corrupt element within the financial industry to rob America's middle class. The political attack on our minimum wage laws and middle class unions does not benefit the middle class; it only paves the way for coporations to increase their profits and power over the middle class.

As to why our “elite leaders” have neglected and continue to neglect the needs of America's middle class, I’d said it's all all about personal gain. Our “elite leaders” chant mantras like “tax cuts” and “corporations are people too” because they personally benefit from the perks and campaign contributions of the corporate and ultra rich sectors.

October 20, 2011 at 11:27 a.m.
NGAdad said...

So, You don't refute you are KindofNada, would be disappointed, have no cogent argument AND you haven't had to be judged by qualified experts for the public expression of facts to support your case. I rest my case, thanks for playing.

October 20, 2011 at 11:30 a.m.
kingofDeetown said...

LOL, My name is meant to be 'tongue in cheek,' so I think kindofnada is appropo'. Ironically, you laughably failed to refute you were "NGAdud" as you point out my failing to refute your additional ad hominem insult- see how that works. Brilliant! Talk about nothing cogent to add. Rest your case . . . LOL! Gamesmanship aside, 'thanks for playing' indeed (the argument is over because you say so? That's tantamount to taking your ball and going home)- I love rousing the looser. Every court needs a jester, thanks for the giggles.

October 20, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
BobMKE said...

SOS, It doesn't matter where to lay the blame. The majority of the voters are turned off by the protesters and their tactics. What they are doing is totally turning off the voters but they don't get it. Oblamea and others up for election/reelection will be greatly hurt by the protests. How many of the people who will be running in 2012 are stupid enough to hitch their wagon to Oblamea and his "ilk?" They didn't hitch their wagon to him on Job Bill II did they?

Sorry I wouldn't be able to respond to this because I'm heading "Up North"(Wisconsin's God's Country)to close up the cottage for the winter. I'll be back Sunday and I'm sure Clay will have another one of his Social Democrat cartoons we all can argue about.

October 20, 2011 at 12:05 p.m.
DarkSky said...

I agree with 99% of Limric's 10:09am post. It's what I think the OWS is all about.

October 20, 2011 at 12:11 p.m.
steve_smith said...

I get that people have a problem with 1% amassing x amount of wealth. The question is, how much wealth are they allowed to amass?

October 20, 2011 at 12:37 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

limric,

I agree with your characterization of the problem but I don’t believe the OWS crowd is as clean as you portray them to be. Hopefully as their sense of purpose evolves it will go in your direction but that does not seem likely. The propaganda raining down on them is very similar to the cartoons Bennett pumps out. They are assigning the blame on business and banking and ignoring the government contribution. It is probably safe to say that 80 percent of the politicians participate in the problem and 20 percent of the businesses, but somehow the politicians are getting let completely off the hook by this movement.

I'd be ready to join OWS if they were sitting on the Whitehouse lawn. That is the difference between a teabagger and a fleabagger. The teabagger is mature enough to recognize the complexity of the problem and knows the root of the problem is in government.

October 20, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
hambone said...

BobMKE, Going up nort to hunt da tirty point buck?

October 20, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
jesse said...

i think limric needs to run for president!!!

October 20, 2011 at 12:57 p.m.

But the voices of the 99 persent will not be silenced until the greed of the 1 percent is driven from our land and they come to fully understand that the reason for the growing global discontent rests with them alone. missLibbi

why missLibi yall is 101% rong! jest lass nite en TV tha ole mrBams! sed en hees speeech "tha topp 2% bla bla bla..." now wut is it?? 1 or 2? mek upp yur hi falootin mines an jes hoo is awl ya cwottin now? mrJon? mrOBams! mrLusturmen? missGarfoillulu? missHuffipoots?

why mrHarp n awl hev xplaynd tha trooth an tha fax ovr an ovr an yall jes wan ta tooot yur hornns an poosh yur awls a-jenduhh! git yursefs owt ta tha wudshedd now an git yur dee-survd wuppins!

October 20, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
potcat said...

Occupy Wall Street..Why do you hate me? I hate you because you're still GAMBLING with the United States, States and City Tax Payers Money and our leaders in Washington are doing NOTHING to stop it.

Here's a good example.. TVA played the stock market and lost a lot of money set up for their employees retirement Pension Fund. They have now said that since we lost this money with the Gamblers on Wall Street, you the rate payers are going to have to pay a higher rate on your Electric bill because of it.

Well hell, why would i have to pay your Gambling Debt? I have no choice in the matter because i need Electricity. Thats why i hate you and CEO's in general, it involves me and mine and if a TVA Employ wants a retirement pension, then play with your own salaried money, knock yourself out, but don't make me pick up the tab for your Gambling. Pay for your own damn pension and that goes for Every One, you want to play than you are the one to pay, not me.

October 20, 2011 at 1:26 p.m.
DarkSky said...

BRP, are you mellowing? Change what you said about Whitehouse lawn to camping on Capitol Hill then you and I could probally come to some sort of agreement. We could march by the Whitehouse every day but I think Capitol Hill is the biggest problem.

October 20, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
JustOneWoman said...

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the adult section. My bad. Judging from Huck's post, we are back with the 5 year olds. But now I am no longer surprised by the lack of knowledge. We are dealing with the kindergarten mentality. The majority of Chattanoogans may not understand the OWS, but the nation is standing with the protesters to the tune of about 70%. We can see it for ourselves, being posted online by the individuals living it. If you want to believe what faux is telling you, then that is your problem. But with our nation pulling together 70% support, you will be on the wrong end of history.

October 20, 2011 at 1:37 p.m.
EaTn said...

BRP--the major differences as I see it between the two baggers is that the first originated from a well organized and financed right-wing political movement in a disgruntled response to Obama and dems majority election in 2008 with the purpose to tear them down, and was somewhat successful in 2010. The last is a non-political and non-organized movement of various unhappy reasons that is spreading rapidly worldwide, and my guess is that in this country it will have to evolve into a more organized structure with goals to survive and be successful.

October 20, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

GIVE THE MAN A STANDING OVATION

Atta boy, Limric. Your 10:09 post was pure genius. Cut to the chase. Explain it so a 12 year old could understand. Kudos, bravo, so on and so forth. If I wore a cap I'd doff it for thee.

There is way too much money in politics. Too much money to run for office, too much money pouring in from corporate interests, and too little attention to the poor slobs who only have one vote each. But why does it cost so much money?

The cost of television advertising is the main reason. It costs millions to produce an effective commercial and millions more for prime time carpet bombing. TV has made running for office a mult-million dollar quest for more and more contributions from special interest with special legislative wants.

There are some good ideas to combat this: impose a $100 limit on all contributions. Since corporations are people too, each corporation cannot contribute more than a hundred bucks.

My personal favorite is the total ban on TV advertising. No more 30-second, 60-second, whatever-second spot on television. They get free air time on PBS and NPR. Each candidate is free to debate with other candidates - as our entertaining regressives demonstrated so amusingly the other night - but stop selling elections like constipation medicine. (Please, keep the jokes to yourselves.)

There is a reason why the OWS movement is gaining so much attention. It's the oxygen that fuels the fire, the inspiration that stirs the soul:

Truth.

October 20, 2011 at 1:57 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

DarkSky said... "Change what you said about Whitehouse lawn to camping on Capitol Hill then you and I could probally come to some sort of agreement"

Fair enough. How about ADD Capital Hill to the Whitehouse? As long as all of the parties are held responsible and the government side is not getting away with playing us against private enterprise for thier own gain I am happy. Occupy Washinton & Wall Street? OWWS?

October 20, 2011 at 2:14 p.m.
limric said...

BRP,

Is it fair to compare OWS & the Tea Party? No, I don’t believe so. The Occupy Wall Street protestors are angry for the right reasons whereas the Tea Party is angry over their misguided notion of taxes and government. Both claims to want “take the power back.” But whereas the Tea Party has a simplistic “taxes and government are the problem” mantra we often see coming from the angry right propaganda machine, the Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that it’s corporate special interests and their Capital Hill – White House enablers that have filled the political power vacuum (a vacuum that exists largely because everyday people either haven’t participated in the Democratic process or, like the Tea Party, allow themselves to be naively led by said corporate interests and unwittingly act against their own best interests). Whereas the Tea Party protests appear to be an 8-5 affair where protestors hold up signs (at times racist) and speak out against government then go home (and enjoy their social security and Medicare benefits), the OWS movement is a 24/7 affair, with protesters camping in public areas in financial districts.

As this Occupy Wall Street Protester articulates (Fox News conveniently failed to air this): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IroRe9...

Occupy Wall Street: Angry for the right reasons: OWS protestors are angry that the wealth has gone to the top 1%, and that corporations have gotten richer while the average American has seen less and less fruits from their own labor. Well, they’re right.

Most of the wealth over the last few decades has coagulated at the very top as taxes on the rich have been lowered and union-busting has largely dismantled unions and their ability to fight for living wages for workers. Likewise, the lowering of corporate taxes has only met with more hoarding of wealth. And this disparity between the rich and everyone else is far more prevalent here in the United States than in other industrialized nations.

The Tea Party: Angry for the wrong reasons: The Tea Party is angry about taxes and the size of government. Unfortunately, a study by Forbes shows they are grossly misinformed on both subjects. Both taxes and government are smaller in the US than in other nations. They are angry at the sudden rise in taxes. BUT in fact, Obama has actually enacted more tax cuts than Bush so far.(Sorry ‘Blondebutdumb’ that does not make me a Obama Supporter).

Naturally the Tea Party is angry about the debt: but the debt is primarily a result from lost revenues from the Bush tax cuts and followed by the economic downturn.

Continued below...

October 20, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.
limric said...

Continued from above:

The Boston Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and the modern Tea Party Movement: You can criticize the Occupy Wall Street protestors for engaging in disruptive behavior, or question whether they are as clean as I portray them to be. But it would seem to me that we generally have no qualms with the fact that The Boston Tea Party itself was vastly “more illegal” -- according to British Law. Whereas the Tea Party protestors appear to show up, protest against government, then drive home on public roads, OWS protests are spreading and staying on message 24 -7.

I have interviewed many of the OWS participants. Make no mistake; they are just as angry as you are with our present government. From what I’ve gathered, many ultimately want the Tea Party to join forces with them. A true force to be reckoned with.

The Revolution Will Be Televised

October 20, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Same crap, different day. Clay's handlers, there must be something more you can order him to attack. Please, for the sanity of us all: global warming, handgun violence, word epidemic, violence, Signal Mountain football, anything

October 20, 2011 at 2:33 p.m.
limric said...

“Occupy Washinton & Wall Street? OWWS?”

I like it – I like it. Right on BRP!

By George, I think he’s got it.

October 20, 2011 at 2:40 p.m.
riverman said...

Once again Sandy on Signal proves her airhead twittiness with the statement the Republicans caused the problems we are in. I suggest you read the book, "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson of that right wing publication the NY Times. She names names and about 75% of them are Democrats. Sandy you ever heard of Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Robert Rubin, Angelo Mozilo, Barney Frank and his "companion, Herb Moses, and yes Sandy, your boy Bill Clinton, who started it all with his Fair Housing Initiative in the mid 90s. But unlike a twit like you I also recognize some of our guys were involved too including Bush and his housing people. Maybe you should learn some facts about what you are talking about before making a fool out of yourself.

October 20, 2011 at 3:39 p.m.

Until the Occupy crowd takes on Obama and points out his hypocracy, then they're just a bunch of hippies and druggies with their hands out.

Until they chant for Obama to stop taking money from banks, financiers, corporations and big donors, then they're just a bunch of tools taking marching orders from leftist groups and the Dem. Party.

JustOneWoman, you're dreaming. 70%?

I see a lot in common with Obama and dictators like Ghadaffi and Chavez. A lot. Ghadaffi and Chavez.

October 20, 2011 at 3:48 p.m.
steve_smith said...

Would it be OK if the 1% amassed 15% of the wealth?

October 20, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.

How very convenient that the useful idiots are starting their occupy "movements" when Fast and Furious and Solyndra were starting to heat up for Barry and his buddies. We now have Mountain Plaza inc. right here in TN and SonPower being added to the list. You always have to keep your eye on the pea with the less than transparent administration currently "occupying" the white house.

The OWS tom-foolery is nothing more than a distraction now, and an inroad to revolution if Barry and his boys feel like they are going to lose the 2012 election. With the Unions, marxists, progressives, radical islamic regimes and socialists supporting this thing it is more astroturf than anything ever found in the stadiums of the world. It is well funded and even has it's own "spontaneous" full-color newspaper and 5 star chef http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occu_pie_the_kitchen_PIZ7EsDJEZqzPgzzEWKX7I turning out things like salmon cakes with dill sauce and quinoa salad "donated" by farmers. Where are these homeless, jobless, poor getting the money for this stuff? Why do all of them own digital cameras and smartphones? Why is the communist fist in most of their posters? Who has taught them so much about techniques developed during protests in the 60's?

We should all be very concerned by what is being organized here. If anyone wants to look up the '68 Chicago riots you will see the future of these occupy protests.

October 20, 2011 at 5:16 p.m.
EaTn said...

The 1% that control 40% will start getting some respect when they begin assuming their responsibility for investing some of the wealth in jobs and fair taxes to help keep afloat this country that has given them the opportunity to prosper.

October 20, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl responded with.... As to why our “elite leaders” have neglected and continue to neglect the needs of America's middle class, I’d said it's all all about personal gain. Our “elite leaders” chant mantras like “tax cuts” and “corporations are people too” because they personally benefit from the perks and campaign contributions of the corporate and ultra rich sectors.

You think the republicans are bad and the democrats are good. I think both are rotten. Do you not think both parties are guilty? How did Obama accumulate around 1 billion in his campaign fund. I think both of them are willing to destroy the country for their own benefit. I doubt either will agree to eliminate subsidies, incentives and tax breaks and support to their supporters.

October 20, 2011 at 6:23 p.m.
fairmon said...

EaTn said.... The 1% that control 40% will start getting some respect when they begin assuming their responsibility for investing some of the wealth in jobs and fair taxes to help keep afloat this country that has given them the opportunity to prosper. Why would anyone invest in making products they can't sell? Would you? People keep buying imports so American made products are not bought by Americans and some are competitively priced.

October 20, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
EaTn said...

harp3339-- our roads and bridges and other infastructure are crumbling and need major repair requiring construction materials, equipment and jobs. Instead of fighting the President on these programs, the 1% could demand Congress get with the programs and adjust tax equities to pay for them.

October 20, 2011 at 7 p.m.
rick1 said...

BW48 said numbers never lie. That is true but you forgot to mention one very important fact. In 1993 Clinton signed into law one of the largest tax increaes in history and these tax increases added very little to the treasury receipts. In 1997 when the Republican's controlled congress they passed and Clinton reluctantly signed the 1997 tax bill which cut capital gains taxes and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates. This is when the economy took off, and treasury receipts more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

October 20, 2011 at 7:06 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

1/3 of OWS demonstrators support violence in the name of the cause?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

October 20, 2011 at 7:10 p.m.
hambone said...

BRuP, 1/3 of republican voters are against Obama's jobs bill!!!

October 20, 2011 at 8:26 p.m.
carlB said...

We need a comprehensive and bold jobs agenda, starting with the American Jobs Act. It will take money and Obama's enemies, including some Democrats, are "hell bent" to prevent him having the needed money to get our infrastructure jobs while the private sectors are not helping recreate any jobs here unless they get tax payer subsidies and incentives.
It is time for the people to realize that to have a Republic, there has to be a proper balance kept between the “extreme” political, ideological, and the “money lenders.” Therefore with the global corporations not paying enough taxes to fill the void left by loss of the middle class tax base, this situation is creating an imbalance in the taxes needed to support the public teachers and the other tax supported public workers from the top to the local areas. Yet, the number of the people needing the services of these public workers is increasing.

October 20, 2011 at 9:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

EaTn responded...

our roads and bridges and other infastructure are crumbling and need major repair requiring construction materials, equipment and jobs. Instead of fighting the President on these programs, the 1% could demand Congress get with the programs and adjust tax equities to pay for them.

That might help and work better if American made materials were used 100% at the risk of a trade war with China.

October 20, 2011 at 9:38 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

FORWARD INTO THE PAST

Rick1 is trying to peddle that old malarkey about how Newt and the regressives balanced the budget. Rick1 whined, 1993 Clinton signed into law one of the largest tax increaes in history and these tax increases added very little to the treasury receipts.

He went on to imply that republicans were the real budget surplus heroes. Rick, you're obviously not clever enough to make this stuff up so let me intervene here and exorcize some of those fox 'news' demons.

Pay attention: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, signed into law August 10, 1993, raised taxes on mainly on the wealthy people but also raised the gas tax, extended limits on discretionary spending and cut back on some mandatory spending. Five months prior to its passage the CBO had projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. Of the $160 billion projected budget improvement CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA was the single greatest contributor to the 1998 surplus.

Newt's so-called Balanced Budget Act of 1997 actually increased the deficit for 1998. The CBO reported that the passage of that bill resulted in a $21 billion deficit increase.

No wonder Clinton was reluctant to sign it.

In September of 1997, the CBO reported, "Over the past four years, growth in revenues has consistently outpaced that of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2 to 3 percentage points. Several factors have contributed to that outcome. The tax increases enacted in the OBRA of 1993 were the main causes in 1994 and 1995. Also, the personal and corporate income tax bases grew faster than GDP over the period, especially in 1996 and 1997. Higher income taxpayers experienced above-average income growth, which boosted revenues because their income is taxed at higher marginal rates.”

Rick, I don't know where you're getting your information but I've got a pretty good idea. Knock it off. You can do your own research and read your own budget reports and do your own assessment of the numbers. Why let somebody else spoon feed you? I repeat: numbers don't lie.

But people often do.

October 20, 2011 at 9:44 p.m.
acerigger said...

I’m trying to remember all of those Tea Party protests in the UK, Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. Oh right, they didn’t happen. Oh I know, there were a handful of people in London in September 2010, but the UK events were all astroturfed by the same right-wing think tanks and dirty Koch money that flogged the big U.S. events. They went away pretty fast, too. I guess “protesting” to support the ownership class just doesn’t seem to be a winning message with the masses.

October 20, 2011 at 9:56 p.m.
ArnoldZiffel said...

GREAT POINT, FPSE!! Nothing happens by accident. BO is a disgrace and a slimey opportunist!! LOL Look at him out there before GHADAFFI is even cold trying to take credit for his death!!

KOCH BROTHERS, KOCH BROTHERS, KOCH BROTHERS, KOCH BROTHERS, ACE WANT A CRACKER, ACE WANT A CRACKER. Stupid parrots on here. LOL

October 20, 2011 at 10:18 p.m.
acerigger said...

crackers aint hard to find 'round here!

October 20, 2011 at 10:23 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHY CAN'T REGRESSIVES TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER?

Libyan Ambassador Aujali was asked by reporters today for his reaction to Gadhafi's death. He said, "Thank you, America. You took the right decision."

If a republican president killed bin Laden and Gadhafi within months of each the GOP would be demanding a new head on Mt. Rushmore. Good grief.

What's wrong with you people? Did you really want to see thousands more America combat soldiers deployed to yet another war? How would you propose to juggle three separate conflicts at a cost of billions per day?

Obama wanted Gadhafi out, and he's out. A coalition between NATO, Arab nations AND the U.S. took the lead. Good for them. Not one U.S. soldier was killed. Our intelligence agencies tracked Gadhafi down and our predator drone struck his convoy.

Why can't you just say it was a win for everybody and leave it at that?

October 20, 2011 at 11:17 p.m.
acerigger said...

In March, you said Obama didn't act quickly enough and with enough force.

Then when Obama acted, you (and Dennis Kucinich) said Obama acted too hastily, acted unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached.

Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough.

You can't handle the fact that sh*t gets done nowadays. In 6 months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at which Saint Ronny tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead, something Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead.

Just face it, Repubs, you suck at anything other than lowering taxes for yourselves and bankrupting the United States. Maybe it's time for you to sit down, shut up, and let the adults handle things.

Okay?

October 20, 2011 at 11:29 p.m.
DarkSky said...

blondebutnotdumb said...

"Until the Occupy crowd takes on Obama and points out his hypocracy, then they're just a bunch of hippies and druggies with their hands out."

So, if OWS takes on President Obama then they turn into fine, clean, sober, upstanding, righteous citizens?

Turn off your major(partisan) news provider for a while and listen to the other side for a bit. I think you have been programed by people who make you fear. Then they build you back up with hate because hate makes you feel powerful.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Haven't the American people (and other peoples of the world) suffered enough because of the gross mismanagement of our gov't for the last 30 years?

October 21, 2011 at 12:13 a.m.
steve_smith said...

It seems pretty simple that if someone supposes the 1% isn't paying their fair share that that person or entity would then offer up what they think that fair share should be. Let's get it on the table. Let's move on. This issue of progressivity or regressivity has been around since the early 1900's. Does "fair" mean anything? Does it change from generation to generation? What is this fair share. What is it? Just come out with it.

October 21, 2011 at 2:07 a.m.
lanaland said...

Another brilliant one!

October 21, 2011 at 3:21 a.m.
rick1 said...

BW48 the facts are the tax reduction in 1997 increased the U.S. Treasury Revenue and I provided a link to prove the fact the increase in revenue.

When presented with facts you do not agree with you make immature comments about Fox News demaons. Why don't you grow up.

October 21, 2011 at 6:19 a.m.
EaTn said...

rick1 said..." BW48 the facts are the tax reduction in 1997 increased the U.S. Treasury Revenue"

Most tax reductions are not tied to reduced spending resulting in increased deficits. Borrowed money by nature pump a percentage of the cash back into the Treasury making it look artificially positive.

October 21, 2011 at 6:59 a.m.
fairmon said...

There is no doubt a high percent of wasteful spending along with some departments that are essentially useless to the people and the economy. Who among the currently in office and those aspiring to be have the gonads to aggressively address both? Clinton maintains there should be no legislation that does not increase sustainable private sector jobs. He didn't say it exactly but he did mention that value for dollar spent was important. In other words, in my opinion, a cost/benefit analysis by someone other than congress would be great. We have a bunch of lawyers that are not business people running the biggest business in the world and they are in a head long rush to the biggest and most devastating bankruptcy in the history of the world.

October 21, 2011 at 7:38 a.m.
alprova said...

EaTN wrote: "Most tax reductions are not tied to reduced spending resulting in increased deficits. Borrowed money by nature pump a percentage of the cash back into the Treasury making it look artificially positive."

Not to mention the fact that during 1997, the unemployment rate hit a 28 year low, combined with a 2.5% growth in jobs, also a major factor contributing to the revenue stream.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1998/02/art4full.pdf

October 21, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
EaTn said...

harp3339 said..."We have a bunch of lawyers that are not business people running the biggest business in the world and they are in a head long rush to the biggest and most devastating bankruptcy in the history of the world"

TOTALLY TRUE..except some of our current businesses are no better.

October 21, 2011 at 8:09 a.m.
tderng said...

steve_amith asked.... What is this fair share.

forget it steve_smith,I have asked and asked that question and I am either ignored or given some rambling answer with no real answer.IT SEEMS THAT IT IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WHAT THEY PAY NOW AND EVERYTHING THEY OWN.

October 21, 2011 at 8:42 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “You think the republicans are bad and the democrats are good. I think both are rotten. Do you not think both parties are guilty? ”

Since political parties are made up of individuals, the matter is a bit more complex than what you suggest, Harp3339. Some Republicans are more responsible than others. The same is true for the Democrats. From my perspective, what’s blatantly rotten is the system. The bottom line is nothing is going to change in this country until we change the way political campaigns are financed. The recent Supreme Court ruling that allows unlimited independent expenditures by corporations can only make things worse – much, much worse.

Harp3339 said: “How did Obama accumulate around 1 billion in his campaign fund?”

If you believe both parties are rotten, why do you continue to focus on Obama, Harp3339? Say what you will about Obama, but he did try to do something to reduce the role that special interest plays in our political system, which is a lot more than your guy Romney is doing. Romney’s rhetoric about “corporations are people too” should be a red alert to any American who is concerned about the level of special interest and corporate involvement plays in our political system. And it’s not just Romney. . . it appears to be a Republican majority:

“The House has passed the measure, which Democrats initiated after the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to allow unlimited independent expenditures by corporations in elections . . . But in the Senate, with a solid wall of Republican opposition, the measure is expected to fall short of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. . .

A week after the court issued its decision in . . . Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Mr. Obama delivered an unusually direct critique in his State of the Union address . . . He said the court had “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

Mr. Obama got applause then in urging Congress to pass legislation mitigating the problems he foresaw, but it mostly came from Democrats.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader who has marshaled his party against other Obama initiatives, has made stopping the campaign finance bill a personal priority. Before he became Republican leader, Mr. McConnell was perhaps best known for his longtime battle against what became known as the McCain-Feingold law, the act restricting campaign spending.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us/politics/27obama.html

October 21, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Ziffel... Why couldn't Bush-Cheney get ANY of these bad characters? Terrorists/despots falling like dominoes in such a short time! Was there something dirty going on in the previous administration or were they just that inept? Ask Mr. Haney. I don't guess this will be an issue in the election, will it? Laughable, the change in attitudes regarding Libya among the GOP candidates.

October 21, 2011 at 11:45 a.m.
steve_smith said...

Asking someone to pay "their fair share" and then failing to give them an itemized bill is like a restaurant putting an automatic 20% tip on your check even though it's a self service restaurant.

Most people step up to their responsibilities. Just let people know what you think they are responsible for.

What is the "fair share?"

October 21, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
jesse said...

limrics post of 10/20/ 10:09 was spot on !

the big corp's. are in a win/win situation they gamble bigtime and if they win it belongs to them,if they lose the taxpayer is on the hook! IF thats what the fleabaggers are protesting then more power to them> then he comes back at 2:23 p.m. and says it's the top 1% individual's that are to blame!

2nd post kinda shot down the 1st. imo.

October 21, 2011 at 12:25 p.m.
hambone said...

What is everyone's fair share?

Maybe going back to 2000 tax rates when we had a budget surplus and could began paying down the National debt!

October 21, 2011 at 12:38 p.m.
tderng said...

dude-abides...it could possibly be that these despots are going down like dominoes because 1)Arab spring (which has absolutely nothing to do with Obama).2)Increase in technology to track people.3)and to give credit where it is actually due the fortitude to pull the trigger when information becomes available.Bin Laden was finally located after many years of gathering information and searching beginning in the Bush admin. and culminating in Obama's.Other than that who has Obama been responsible for toppling?You could possibly include Ghaddafi but his demise is more a result of the Arab Spring than anything Obama did.Mostly it was done by N.A.T.O. and its other members.

October 21, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Steve_Smith said: "Asking someone to pay "their fair share" and then failing to give them an itemized bill is like a restaurant putting an automatic 20% tip on your check even though it's a self service restaurant. Most people step up to their responsibilities. Just let people know what you think they are responsible for."

For starters, the sources of personal income should be taxed equally. The personal income of an individual who earns his or her living through investments shouldn’t automatically receive a tax rate lower than the tax rate being given to an individual who earns his or her living through wages or salaries, which is what is happening now. Individuals who make their living by shuffling money are essentially being given a preferential lower tax rate, which is unfair. Personal income is personal income, and, as such, should be taxed accordingly.

October 21, 2011 at 2:04 p.m.
hambone said...

Some post on this forum that government should live within its means like a family budget.

Well in 2000 government WAS living within its means and putting money in the bank!!

October 21, 2011 at 2:36 p.m.
lumpy said...

Dude, laughable the change in attitudes by liberals in using force overseas. As long as a Democrat is at the helm then it's ok. Very laughable. Why didn't Bush/Cheney get any of these bad characters? Dumb question. First of all, Obama didn't get anybody. He may be beating his chest like a Gorrilla, but he gets no credit. The effort to get Bin Laden took years and many have sacrificed for it. It was set into motion long ago. Obama didn't go over there and start the uprising in Lybia, did he? You liberals are grasping at straws to recreate Obama.

I have no problem with Ghadaffi being taking out, or Hussein and or anyone else that is threatening us. You talk as if Obama is somekind of warrior-lion. Only until he came along are we strong enough to get the bad guys. Just plain dumb.

Actually the French and the British deserve most of the credit in Lybia.

In my opinion, Obama has a mentality similar to the despots that are being taken out rather the people who are throwing them out.

He's extremely dictatorial and reluctant to listen to different opinions. He has to have his way or he goes on vacay.

October 21, 2011 at 3:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

mntl responds with...

Say what you will about Obama, but he did try to do something to reduce the role that special interest plays in our political system, which is a lot more than your guy Romney is doing. Romney’s rhetoric about “corporations are people too” should be a red alert to any American who is concerned about the level of special interest and corporate involvement plays in our political system. And it’s not just Romney. . . it appears to be a Republican majority:

Don't for a second suggest I am a Romney supporter. That would be as close to no change as it can get. I don't see any candidate that may face the issues other than Cain and I don't yet know enough about him. My vote right now would be for none of the above and for congress probably anyone never holding office or not kin to someone previously holding office. You can praise Obama all you want to but I think he is in over his head and isn't smart enough to know it. In fact the more I listen to him the more I dislike him.

Do you not think Obama is as owned as many others in office. I know some of his major contributors and I don't like their agenda.

October 21, 2011 at 4:32 p.m.
steve_smith said...

So what I gather is that all of the ruckus about the 1% is that capital gains taxes are lower than their marginal rates. Moreover, another poster thinks this 1% aversion is due to the difference between President Obama's present tax rates and former President Clinton's.

Are these two points what all the handwringing is about? If we had kept the 2000 tax rates and capital gains were taxed along with ordinary income, everybody would be hunky dory with the 1%? Really? Wow?

October 21, 2011 at 6:12 p.m.
acerigger said...

You wingers are hilarious!

But at the same time pathetic!

Hilariously pathetic,or pathetically hilarious? hard to say.

October 21, 2011 at 6:20 p.m.
steve_smith said...

Let's take two states: New York and Tennessee. I would guess the disparity between the rich and the poor would be greater in New York than in Tennessee. Now let's look at the social systems in place in the two states. New York spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education. It has a stronger union presence. It has a higher property tax burden. It has an income tax. It is, and has perennially been under the control of a left leaning government. It is wealthier. And the disparity between the rich and the poor is higher there than in Tennessee. OWS doesn't stand for Occupy Walnut Street. There is a cancer that has taken over government. That tumor is best identified as big government. People need government. But people don't need a government more powerful than the People are. The reason the 1% are the 1% isn;t because of inheritance. Its because the government favored them. Clip the heels of government and you'll clip the heels of the 1%.

October 22, 2011 at 12:12 a.m.
dude_abides said...

lumpy/tderng... Tora Bora, Valerie Plame, WMD, Pat Tillman... a litany of mistakes and skullduggery. What a bunch of pompous jerks they were. Hey, at least the world ain't laughing at us anymore.

October 22, 2011 at 1:03 a.m.
EaTn said...

steve_smith said "The reason the 1% are the 1% isn;t because of inheritance. Its because the government favored them. Clip the heels of government and you'll clip the heels of the 1%."

Exactly. And that is the reason the greedy 1% are pouring millions into the super-pacs...to keep their control on government so the 1% can expand their 40%.

October 22, 2011 at 8:57 a.m.
EaTn said...

JonRoss....it's already happening in America...the 1% are dumping &#@? on the 99%, with some gullible of the 99% thinking it smells like roses.

October 22, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
chet123 said...

I knew you would finally come around....This country need a complete turn-around.....94% of politician with the most money get elected......that mean with enough money you can run "Bozo the clown" and he will beat his opponent.....

October 22, 2011 at 10:20 a.m.
prairiedog said...

There's one word for anyone who thinks the guy in the chair is a Republican CEO: SUCKER!

October 22, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.
ricardo said...

What's this piece of trash on the bottom of my shoe? I'd better scrape it off before I trip and fall.

October 22, 2011 at 11:19 a.m.
EaTn said...

Here's a thought for the day: the left-leaning part of the 99% blame the wealthy for our deteriorated situation in this country, and the right-leaning part of the 99% blame the politicians. Maybe both are right in that it is the wealthy controlled politicians that we need to remove from office.

October 22, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
carlB said...

dude_abides said... Ziffel... Why couldn't Bush-Cheney get ANY of these bad characters? Terrorists/despots falling like dominoes in such a short time! Was there something dirty going on in the previous administration or were they just that inept? Ask Mr. Haney. I don't guess this will be an issue in the election, will it? Laughable, the change in attitudes regarding Libya among the GOP candidates. October 21, 2011 at 11:45 a.


Reply to dude_abides;you ask a good question.
In my opinion, if Cheney and Bush W. had allowed the capture or killing of Bin Laden when they had the chance, then it would have taken away their already made plans for invading Iraq. All of the "lies" would have fallen on more people being against the invasion of Iraq. Strictly a misuse of the military by everybody in the Bush W. administration. Look what they did to General Powell.

October 22, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
carlB said...

EaTn said... Here's a thought for the day: the left-leaning part of the 99% blame the wealthy for our deteriorated situation in this country, and the right-leaning part of the 99% blame the politicians. Maybe both are right in that it is the wealthy controlled politicians that we need to remove from office. October 22, 2011 at 11:35 a.m


Reply to EaTn: If any of the people who have been affected by the concerted effort of the few "money changers," it should be obvious that they are using the free trade agreements (global economy) with the lower monetary value countries, finalized by our elected "leaders," to actually wage a war against the workers here in the USA. There are a few powerful "players" involved in this "scheme" for destroying this Republic's status as we know it and what the growth of the "middle class" did for the growth of our economy after the 1929 great depression. During the last few years, there has been a concerted effort of the powerful few to destroy the balance of the manufacturing base, destroying of the middle class, the "busting up" of the workers' representation, bargaining rights, and moving this Republic back to the pre FDR attitude toward the working people. The arrogance of the effort of the people who are pushing the depression of the workers, really expect them to accept the old attitude without any disagreement.

Senator Corker has made it obvious where he stands against the workers in wanting them to give up their wages and benefits along with their bargaining power. Does he forget that it is the middle class workers paying his salary since he is against increasing the taxes on the one percent to help with increasing the production jobs?

October 22, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
potcat said...

I just had a talk with my Mail Man.He is a Vietnam Vet. has a High School Education and has worked his entire life in a Foundry and when he lost that job, he got a job delivering mail so he could work till 65. He's been my mail man about 10 yrs. and we have got to know each other.

HE is Conservative and Liberal and more importantly he knows WAR, he is plenty smart and is having trouble with is back but can't afford the operation the doctors are recommending and he does'nt know if he would do it any way , he's leary of Doctors. He would make a better President of THE United States Of America than any of these Bozos running and the one we have now. I am writting his name on the Ballot for President! We need someone other than RICH people running this Country who are bought by Wall Street. You couldn't courrupt Toby because he hate's them too! For the Working MAN and i don't mean pencil pushing GasBAGs.

October 22, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.
EaTn said...

Just reading on the various occupy movements across the country. These are generally not the 9-5 working group that take a couple hours each week to carry a sign. The core of these groups are the true grit unemployed, homeless and sincere volunteers who care more about the needy than the greedy. Maybe those who expect to see clean shaven protest folks in business casual on the news should take a dose of realty check. The lower ranks of the 99% may be your next tent neighbor.

October 22, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.
ricardo said...

As we hear Republican candidates dismiss the frustration of the 99%, we truly learn what they stand for, and who is funding their campaigns.

October 22, 2011 at 5:39 p.m.
Lightnup said...

The Occupy movement is the inevitable result of a generation not being allowed to spank their kids.

October 22, 2011 at 9:37 p.m.
ricardo said...

Lightnup said...

The Occupy movement is the inevitable result of a generation not being allowed to spank their monkeys.

October 22, 2011 at 9:45 p.m.
lumpy said...

Good one, JonRoss. I think the "revolution" is composed of those who want the right to deficate and urinate in public. To a lesser degree it's about those who want the right to smell women's feet and expose themselves to children. A fine band they are.

Oh, shut up, Ricardo. Enough with the Democratic Party talking points. You haven't truly learned anything.

Dude, if you think the world isn't laughing at American right now, you're truly out of your mind. Apparently Obama feels the only way to raise his poll numbers is take credit for the death of despots around the world. Ghadaffi was no threat to us. Big triumph. He was bound to fall. The challenge now is how does Obama deal with those who come after him. The only thing for sure, is that there's a 99% chance Obama will bow to the head of that new government.

Obama, the bowing president.

October 22, 2011 at 9:52 p.m.
Lightnup said...

What the income-envy folks like mountainlaurel don't recognize is that those who get investment income have ALREADY BEEN TAXED at regular rates on the money that they earned and then invested. What right does the govt have to double-tax the income of those who wisely invested their income, then redistribute it to those who choose to forego saving/investing in favor of tattoos, 60" TVs and 24" rims?

October 22, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
lumpy said...

Right now Obama, Holder, Biden and some other geniuses are trying to figure out what country to invade next and what dictator to take out. They figure, if they take out enough dictators, and if Obama beats his chest in the rose garden afterwards on tv after each one, he'll get his poll numbers up by fall of 2012, and everyone will forget about the that they don't have jobs or any money.

October 22, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
carlB said...

lumpy,you are really going to extremes in the use of your imagination on trying to make President Obama into someone you appear to truly dislike wanting other people to feel the same as you. The bad news for you is that it will not work because the facts are not in your favor.

What would the conditions be now if McCain and Palin had been elected in 2008? With the opponents of President Obama trying to project him to the voters as a complete failure after being elected in November 2008 and taking the office of Presidency in January 2009. We have to ask; what would the conditions of this Republic be if McCain and Palin had succeeded in being elected and the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate? How can we say for sure what the conditions would be, but if they were in control and “acting” as they are now against President Obama’s policies, would we be in another great depression? . We need the manufacturing jobs here, now. Before the election of President Obama, this Republic was in the 2007 deep recession, which created a panic within the Republican leadership in September, 2008. They had to admit the US was in the 2007 deep recession and did not want another "great depression" occurring again while they were in office. What did the Republicans do? They borrowed $700 billion dollars of unfunded money, to prevent a "world wide financial depression" and with the help of the FED's putting some money into the pot; it temporarily prevented another great depression from occurring. Yet, apparently their concern about preventing another great depression while the Republicans were in control, ended as soon Obama was in office. The Republicans have and are doing everything they can to oppose President Obama’s preventing another economic failure during the time he has been in office, even if the 2007 deep recession has been stabilized by the policies of Obama, without their help.

October 23, 2011 at 12:23 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Lightnup said: "What the income-envy folks like mountainlaurel don't recognize is that those who get investment income have ALREADY BEEN TAXED at regular rates on the money that they earned and then invested."

Sounds like it’s time for tune-up on your thinking skills, Lightnup. If a man buys a lottery ticket and wins the Jackpot, he needs to pay taxes on his winnings because his winnings have not been been taxed. The same is true for a man who invests or shuffles money for a living. Like it or not, the money shuffler needs to pay taxes on his winnings just like everyone else.

October 23, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

There are still a lot of self-righteous boomer A-holes out there, who during the past 20 years have had careers in (bad) management, high-paying tech or medicine or university or similar, and who are very comfortable believing that rewards come to those who "work hard" - i.e., them. They sit in roughly the middle to upper % range. They have a comfortable cushion and have done some investing. The fact that they usually aren't quite rich enough to own yachts, islands, hookers, or Manhattan penthouses just furthers their belief in their uprightness.

This is a whole other layer enabling of the system, just beneath the highly publicized banksters and CEOs. This layer rode the wave and shares the ideology, just as much as the top layer. Even though they lost much in the economic crash, you won't find too many of these people occupying any public spaces.

October 23, 2011 at 9:37 a.m.
fairmon said...

mntl said.......

Sounds like it’s time for tune-up on your thinking skills, Lightnup. If a man buys a lottery ticket and wins the Jackpot, he needs to pay taxes on his winnings because his winnings have not been been taxed. The same is true for a man who invests or shuffles money for a living. Like it or not, the money shuffler needs to pay taxes on his winnings just like everyone else.

You may be the one needing to tune up. Shuffling or gains from buying & selling in the same are treated as ordinary income with the only exception I know of being hedge fund managers that congress has favored with allowing them to treat their gains as long term.

Long term gains are an entirely different subject and much more complex than it appears. The invested money is like owning a business and either realizing a gain that is not off set by inflation or duration of ownership or taking a loss that can only off set future gains by $3,000 per year.

A widow and her husband bought shares of coke stock 40 years ago with after tax money. They received, paid taxes on and reinvested the dividends. She has to sell the shares to pay current expenses. The sell puts her in a higher tax bracket on her other income, increases her medicare premium by $XXX a month. The capital gains taxes and additional taxes on other income plus the medicare premium combined with inflation gives her a net loss in buying power compared to the buying power of the invested money 40 years ago. I can't see the fairness of not differentiating between long term investments and short term for tax purposes. In fact If anything the long term investor (those truly investing in the businesses so badly needed and trying to supplement their retirement income) may be among the unfairly treated. Congress recognized this and partially addressed it in recent years by making a maximum $5,000 ROTH available enabling after tax investments with no taxes on earnings after five years to those with incomes of $165,000 and less.

Try reading something other than the NYT and similar pseudosophistication publications. Southerners think reading the NYT, WST etc. make them sophisticated and informed. Try paying a good financial adviser and analyst that doesn't sell advertising, is not employed by a bank or broker that watches and analyzes the affect of legislation on market sectors and small investors. Congress (both parties) the SEC and other administrators hate them.

October 23, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

We all have systematically been forced to accept less and less. Less pay, less hours, less health care, less less less. As of late, state governments are the most ruthless abusers of formulas that snip and cut people down to practically nothing.

My point being, when our very own government is preying on people this way it sets a whole new standard of what is acceptable. Our government is no longer "our" government. It has been taken over by an international elite who are running this country for profit and using the work and blood of the good people of this country to acquire resources all over the globe. Resources that we pay to acquire that are then privatized and owned and operated for the wealth of a few. As limric called it, ‘corporate socialism’.

These people who have captured our government don't serve us. They are only there to serve themselves. We are like the cattle of a rancher. We do not represent people but rather a unit in which these people look to extract the maximum profit from. It is actually that bad. We have cures for cancer. We could run health care for half the cost and twice in better health outcomes. But serving the people is not what this model is built to do.

We are owned servants who are being treated and processed like livestock and if people don't fight back it's only going to get worse. These people running this country are sociopaths. We need to save ourselves with every resource we can muster and we need to throw these people out now. That includes the Republicans and the Democrats who all do the bidding of these international elite scum.

Occupy Wall Street – The more power to them.

October 23, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.
carlB said...

Everyone should know and expect to pay taxes on any "new money" which comes their way unless somebody pays it for you and then you have to pay taxes on the money used to pay the taxes.
When the jobs disappear for the workers of the middle class production workers, then the US loses their tax payers. The problem appears to be that many people are set on blaming the worker/people for the loss of our middle class tax payers. We all should accept the blame for something relative to our economy and our low GDP. How does the USA maintain our strength in the world if there are not anybody paying taxes to maintain everything our tax dollars are used for?
It appears that there are different opinions on what makes this Republic strong. In my opinion, for whatever the causes, we have again lost/losing the balance of interaction between the the "have's and the have not's." Whether many of you think this is good or bad, we need conditions/situations which are sustainable for the good/strength of this Republic.

We have many critical issues facing our nation that go back for several years. Many of these same issues can only be resolved when the people are willing to work together for solving the crisis in the way, which is the best for our Republic. Not in the ways, which makes our Republic’s economy worse than it was/is, but with the stabilizing of the 2007 deep recession and growing out of it by recreating the needed manufacturing jobs. Then we need to get the “non patriotic” private sectors to reinvest in their global manufacturing here in the USA to provide production jobs for American citizen workers. Therefore providing manufactured goods made in the USA for the American consumers to buy instead of having to buy these global corporate monopolies’ imported goods creating the $600 Billion dollars per year trade deficit with these global companies.

October 23, 2011 at 10:13 a.m.
carlB said...

MickeyRat, you said it correctly and I agree.

October 23, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
Lightnup said...

We won't rebuild manufacturing jobs in the USA by raising corporate taxes and forcing manufacturers to look elsewhere to provide the best return for their stockholders, which is the ONLY reason for a business to exist.

October 23, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
Lightnup said...

MickeyRat posted a lot of gibberish demeaning those who got an education, supported their families by going into business, technical or medical careers, moved up to management (you don't start a career as a manager) practiced personal responsibility, contributed to the economy and employment by buying homes, cars, investing, saving and in the process made sure they would not be dependent on the government in their later years. MickeyRat calls them self-righteous a-holes.

Apparently MickeyRat has more admiration for those who dropped out of school, took whatever menial job was convenient at the time, gave no thought for the future, quit their job or got fired every time "the man" stupidly expected them to show up on time or actually put forth more than the minimum effort, bought lottery tickets as their only method of investing and now blame everybody but themselves for their lot in life. They now want and expect government to make up for their own bad decisions. The quest for undeserved "stuff" that permeates the thinking of MickeyRat, the OWS types and the half of Americans that don't pay taxes is the USA's biggest economic challenge.

October 23, 2011 at 11:49 a.m.
limric said...

Jesse, Quote: “2nd post kinda shot down the 1st. imo.”

How? They both highlight the symbiosis of corporations and government. Such as, from my 10:09 post: “The biggest demand at Occupy Wall Street is to get Big Money out of politics.Visa vi, TARP and near-zero interest Federal Reserve lending — a form of government intervention that the banking industry received but millions of foreclosed on homeowners and debt-laden students did not.” And, from my 2:23 post: “the Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that it’s corporate special interests and their Capital Hill – White House enablers.”

The first post was more of an op-ed. The second was a compare / contrast opinion. Both are quite consistent.

October 23, 2011 at 12:02 p.m.
MickeyRat said...

Here's a simple rule. Any corporation no matter the size that cannot survive on its own and needs taxpayer subsidies or bailouts should be out of business.

The whole market economy system is corrupt. The only rule is: Get as much as you can, as fast as you can, it doesn't matter what you do to get it. When you get it, you become as a God, untouchable. Those that worship money believe that only those rewarded with it are deserving of admiration and revered as kings.

Society is coming apart. The fact that the heads of these giant banks, hedge-fund managers, the rating industry, mortgage lenders, and so on have not been dealt with in criminal proceedings shows there is no moral backbone, no will to seek justice for those swindled and ruined by these criminals. And our government turns a blind eye. Ever ask yourself why?

Serious crimes that big corporations engage in – pollution, corruption, fraud, threatening the lives of real Americans. Corporate capital punishment was normal a century ago and the crimes they commit today are far worse than then, plus they have been deemed to be people thanks to Citizens United. It's high time we bring it back.

October 23, 2011 at 12:34 p.m.
limric said...

I'll do you one better Mickey the Rat.

I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

I saw this sign in NYC a couple of weeks ago. Quite apropos - don't you think.

October 23, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
fairmon said...

Limric...

I agree corporations are not as an entity people and should not be allowed to contribute to and attempt to influence government. Neither should unions and other special interest. Contributions should be strictly limited and traceable to individuals. Corporations and others, like government, have a fiduciary responsible to act in the best interest of those whose money they use to operate which should not include pursuing political favor. Is there any corporation you think acts responsibly and is worthy of investing in? If not what means do you use to save for retirement?

October 23, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.
limric said...

Lightnup and MickeyRat have a conversation:

LIGHTNUP: Mickey Mickey!

MICKEYRAT: Yes, Lightnup.

LIGHTNUP: Where have you been?

MICKEYRAT: Oh! I've been at the "Occupy Wall Street" protests!

LIGHTNUP: You mean "Occupy Hippies and lazy bums," don't you?

MICKEYRAT: Nnno, I'm positive it was called "Occupy Wall Street," I saw signs!

LIGHTNUP: Those people have way too much time on their hands!

MICKEYRAT: I know, Lightnup, they tell me that's what happens when you're unemployed!

LIGHTNUP: Don't you know the CEOs you're protesting are paid to create jobs!

MICKEYRAT: Oh! So they must be creating three-hundred times as many jobs as they did in the seventies, right?

LIGHTNUP: Well, not exactly-- because they're getting taxed to death by the government!

MICKEYRAT: You mean their taxes that are the lowest they've been in thirty years?

LIGHTNUP: Stop doing that, Mickey! No, that's not what I mean!

MICKEYRAT: Ohh, okay, I dunno, Lightnup -- whaddoyou mean then?

LIGHTNUP: I mean you should be thanking Wall Street for all the great things it does for America!

MICKEYRAT: Like building bridges, businesses and lasting examples of productivity?

LIGHTNUP: Well, nnno. Nowadays, see, the business of Wall Street is more, um, intangible. It's what they're best at! That's what you should thank them for!

MICKEYRAT: OH! Like, "thank you for Intangible Derivatives, Wall Street!"

LIGHTNUP: Yes!

MICKEYRAT: And, "thank you for Credit Default Swaps!"

LIGHTNUP: Yes! Now you're getting it Mickey!

MICKEYRAT: Oh! Oh! And, "thank you for Consolidated Debt Obligations!"

LIGHTNUP: Yyyes, I suppose . . .

MICKEYRAT: And thank you for . . "Dark Pools of Liquidity!" Those are really intangible!

LIGHTNUP: Yes, of course.

MICKEYRAT: Thank you for the most concentrated wealth and income in seventy years?

LIGHTNUP: Yes, well- NO!

MICKEYRAT: And thank you for vaporizing trillions of dollars and millions of jobs.

LIGHTNUP: No. No--

MICKEYRAT: Because it's brought us all closer together!

LIGHTNUP: NNNOOO!

MICKEYRAT: Thank you, Lightnup.

LIGHTNUP: What . . . for . . . Mickey?

MICKEYRAT: For all this nothing!

LIGHTNUP: (groans)

MICKEYRAT: Camaraderie is intangible! Friendship is intangible! Happiness . . . community . . . love is intangible! Lightnup?

Whoo,Lightnup - you're not looking very tangible anymore……

October 23, 2011 at 3:48 p.m.
Lightnup said...

cont.....

LIGHTNUP: By the way Mickey, did I mention that the U.S. has the second highest Combined Corporate Tax Rate among all 31 developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development?

MICKEYRAT: Well, yeah, how else could we fund non-viable green companies like Solyndra and that New Hampshire wind farm that just happens to be owned by the owners of Zuccotti Park, base camp for OWS?

LIGHTNUP: Riiiiiight. You know, in 1990, our corporate tax rate was 16th highest of 23 countries but in a fiercely competitive world, we have become less competitive while all the other industrialized countries EXCEPT the U.S. have lowered their rates over the past 20 years.

MICKEYRAT: Wow, that must be why U.S corporations end up going to other countries or are scared to hire people when all they hear is the current administration trying to raise their taxes and supporting OWS. Maybe we should pass more laws to force them to stay here and hire people or else we'll raise their taxes. Boy, that'll teach 'em!

LIGHTNUP: Sigh. The U.S. also has one of the world's highest capital gains tax rates. Incidentally Mickey, did you know that President Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician EVER?

MICKEYRAT: Wow. Really? Maybe I should stop repeating all that OWS propaganda and actually do some research. Nah, that could end up turning me into one of those self-righteous a-holes who don't spend all their time wondering what the government can take away from others and give to them.

LIGHTNUP: Sigh.

October 23, 2011 at 6:35 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “You may be the one needing to tune up. Shuffling or gains from buying & selling in the same are treated as ordinary income with the only exception I know of being hedge fund managers that congress has favored with allowing them to treat their gains as long term. Long term gains are an entirely different subject and much more complex than it appears . . . Try reading something other than the NYT and similar pseudosophistication publications.”

I see you fail to mention the preferential tax rate given to the money shufflers, Harp3339. A lengthy post and slurs against the NYT does not change simple facts and the bottom line issue that I was referencing in my post:

“For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. . . this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically. The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say. . .

Most Americans depend on wages and salaries for their income, which is subject to a graduated tax so the big earners pay higher percentages. The capital gains tax turns that idea on its head, capping the rate at 15 percent for long-term investments. As a result, anyone making more than $34,500 a year in wages and salary is taxed at a higher rate than a billionaire is taxed on untold millions in capital gains.”

While it’s true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html

October 24, 2011 at 3:25 p.m.
carlB said...

Lightnup said... We won't rebuild manufacturing jobs in the USA by raising corporate taxes and forcing manufacturers to look elsewhere to provide the best return for their stockholders, which is the ONLY reason for a business to exist. October 23, 2011 at 11:09 a.m


Rep;y to Lightnup: Lightnup, are you talking about the corporate off shore money that the (American) global corporations have made from selling their goods within the total lower cost countries and by importing their goods bought by the US consumers? Now they are trying to get the taxes lowered to bring their trillions of dollars back. All of this goes back to the free trade agreements. Some of you might remember the many reasons we were told why our elected law makers should approve these "free trade agreements"?
It depends on which side of the fence you are on as to how the "global economy" has effected the workers' jobs and our economy here in the USA. We could add the affect to developed countries world wide. Who would you suggest make the necessary compromises to reestablish the needed balance for jobs and profit margin to prevent all of us going down together?

October 25, 2011 at 10:31 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.