HYPOCRISY: OCCUPY ECCIE SCUM LIE ABOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS

[Marshall]

A silly silly tea party that is in principle no different than an OWS party

Why Occupy Wall Street Is No Tea Party

By Eugene Slaven

As the Occupy Wall Street movement attempts to establish a firm foothold in American society, veterans of left-wing organizing, including former Obama administration czar Van Jones, are urging this fledgling movement to run candidates for office, following the Tea Party model of transforming a grassroots movement into a powerful electoral force. After all, what good is storming local bank branches and blocking Americans from going to work if you don't send representatives to Congress who share your core values and goals? But the prospect of OWS emerging as a viable political force is a pipe dream, akin to similar aspirations held by OWS's ideological predecessors, the 1960s counterculture.
There are fundamental differences between the Tea Party and OWS that made the former a formidable political force and will render the latter an inconsequential soon-to-be historical footnote. Of course, there are also some basic similarities. In the abstract, both are grassroots movements dissatisfied with the status quo and bank bailouts fighting for transformative change. But beyond the abstract, the movements diverge into mutually exclusive entities.
From the beginning, the Tea Party was primarily made up of middle-class, fiscally conservative Americans who opposed government expansion under President Obama and the Democratic Congress. They organized and rallied peacefully, picked up after themselves, and didn't cost taxpayers a dime. The Tea Party called for less debt, less spending, and less government intervention in the economy. They didn't always offer detailed policy proposals, but they did espouse coherent philosophical and economic principles. And while they understandably made some rookie political mistakes, the Tea Party succeeded in transforming the electoral landscape in 2009 and 2010. Their success was all the more impressive, given how novel and politically inexperienced this movement was.
Compare the composition and the philosophical underpinnings of the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Every fringe group seems to gravitate towards OWS. Endorsed by the American Nazi Party, the American Communist Party, David Duke, Iran's Ayatollah, Hugo Chávez, and Kim Jong-il, OWS is a hodgepodge of fringe radicalism, with no clear and concrete values shared by its members, save for a general aversion to capitalism and economic liberty. A movement so philosophically muddled and absurd that it garners the support of a former KKK Grand Wizard, an Islamic fundamentalist, and a Stalinist dictator cannot expect to build winning political coalitions.
OWS supporters counter that every movement entails fringe elements that do not represent the movement as a whole. Interestingly, neither the opponents of the Tea Party nor the mainstream media afforded this benefit of the doubt to the Tea Party; a handful of tasteless and offensive signs at Tea Party rallies were routinely used to disingenuously brand the entire movement as racist, violent, and radical. Lest we be guilty of inaccurately branding OWS, let's actually examine what OWS stands for.
What are some of Occupy Wall Street's guiding principles? Pitting people who make over $300,000 (the 1%) against their friends and family who make less (the 99%)? Pitting employers against employees? The OWS crowd opposes Wall Street bailouts, but supports massive government intervention in the economy and bailouts for mortgage and college debt. They say they oppose crony capitalism but support government takeover of major sectors of the economy. They oppose income inequality but don't explain how making people less wealthy will help the "99%."
The only discernible and consistent message of OWS seems to be that they don't like free enterprise. Free enterprise and rich people. You can't win elections on a barely intelligible, anti-capitalist platform, especially when you lack clear and actionable ideas. The Tea Party rallied against Obamacare, demanded that government reign in its profligate spending, and fought against congressional earmarks. On the other hand, OWS believes that we should put people over profits, end corporate greed, and bail out $1 trillion of student debt. This is indeed a far cry from the philosophically cohesive and coherent Tea Party.
Admittedly, it would be fascinating to watch a movement armed with little more than abstract radical leftist talking points, whose members throw bottles at police, occupy ports and bridges, and are endorsed by international anti-American zealots, attempt to navigate the electoral process. That would be some spectacle.
As a fledgling grassroots movement inexperienced in political advocacy, the Tea Party proved to be surprisingly effective at transforming grassroots energy into political success. Occupy Wall Street doesn't have a chance of duplicating the Tea Party's success -- not because it's made up of political novices, but because it's primarily made up of fringe radicals, young people who don't know any better, petty hooligans, and people whose political views and intellect are aptly reflected by the ubiquitous Che Guevera shirts.

[London Rayne]

Originally Posted by Marshall

Yes.

I was talking to one of the other ladies about you. She laughed at me and said you wouldn't see me because you and I were "genitally incompatible"......what did she mean?

Oh, I think you know "exactly" what she meant lol. Does not mean I would not see you...you would just not get laid. In staying on the topic of microeconomics, you can help me with some graphs concerning elastic and inelastic issues in our market economy...I am cleary NOT elastic.

[London Rayne]

I would like to see this in graph form thanks. If I remember correctly a movement has to do with price and a shift has to do with habits of consumers? Or is it the other way lol. Been a while since I took micro but I am having to do this crap at work, and not getting it!

Originally Posted by Marshall

WDF SAYS: They are all paid for in one form or other. You get a little older and you will understand that.

WDF MUST HAVE MISSED THIS ARTICLE WHEN I POSTED IT......THIS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO YOU OLDER GENTS........


The falling price of sex

Published: Saturday, October 15, 2011, 7:14 AM

By Star-Ledger Editorial BoardThe Star-Ledger

The bad news: Since the recession officially ended two years ago, household income has fallen 6.7 percent to $49,909, according to a study by Census Bureau officials.
The good news, at least for men: Sex is cheaper.
In other words, American men are getting more bang for their buck.
And we’re not talking about the price of goods on the professional sex market; we’re talking about personal relationships. Researchers say women are hopping into bed more quickly — and they’re not asking for a long-term commitment or a ring or an “I love you” first. Some aren’t even asking men to buy them a drink.
According to Kathleen Vohs of the University of Minnesota, the price of sex is “how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual.”
Vohs has targeted how costly sex has become for men, in particular, and she finds the price is plummeting.
In many cases, sex is free. Researchers found that 30 percent of young men’s sexual relationships involve no romance at all. No dating. No flowers. No movie. Not even a flirty text message.
Just “wham, bam ... what’s your name again?”
Besides, in a recession, it’s a low-cost distraction. (And she doesn’t even care if you have a job.)
Researchers say women have lost control of the nookie market. Partly to blame: the pill, the push for sexual equality and widespread access to porn — in high definition, no less.
And then there are the numbers: At colleges, where 57 percent of the students are women, some women are using sex in order to compete for a man’s affections.
Of course, that behavior works against women when they get out of school — because, by then, men are used to getting sex for nothing, or next to it. Women who keep their price high can’t seem to find men who will meet their demands.
Women aren’t likely to regain control of the market, because they’d all have to agree to say no to nookie at Walmart prices — or, in Republican terms, pass a tax increase on the sex creators.
That won’t happen, so cheap sex, like $3 gas, is here to stay. The free market has created its own stimulus program

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

Oh, I think you know "exactly" what she meant lol. Does not mean I would not see you...you would just not get laid. In staying on the topic of microeconomics, you can help me with some graphs concerning elastic and inelastic issues in our market economy...I am cleary NOT elastic.

Is that blow job still available? What's Mardi Gras without some sort of bang......

[JONBALLS]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Way too much to read, can you give a summary?

thats the typical double speak tactic.If he makes it truthfull , short and sweet, youll be on here bitching about the lack of links.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

I did not twist your words. All I said was that everything is done for the purpose of gaining power. That is just human nature. To think otherwise is what you would call a Tea Party! A silly silly tea party that is in principle no different than an OWS party

You did twist my words. It is much more difficult for a business to get big and corrupt in a free, transparent market. You left that out and attacked the status quo, which I also object to. You need to know what you're talking about before you post. It makes you sound stupid.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You did twist my words. It is much more difficult for a business to get big and corrupt in a free, transparent market. You left that out and attacked the status quo, which I also object to. You need to know what you're talking about before you post. It makes you sound stupid.

there is no such a thing as a free and transparent market. In fact why would I as a business owner show any transparency in a truly free market? I do not want my competitiors to know my business. You are living in this bullshit tea party world that is not based in reality. More like sugar plum faries.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JONBALLS

thats the typical double speak tactic.If he makes it truthfull , short and sweet, youll be on here bitching about the lack of links.

marshall posted a link steeped in lies.

Not that he knows it. He does not even understand the laffer curve.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm NOT a Tea Partier. You want more government control of the market, I want less. I want to see big business brought down by market forces, not government, because government never will.

I understand that I am a minority in this. Too many of our citizens have come to accept government control as normal. I have not. Liberty is the normal state of humankind. However, so long as the public has their TV, movies, sporting events, etc., they are content to allow the government to intrude ever more on their privacy and daily activities. I intend to do what I can to keep the dying flame of liberty alive, and I will tell my grandchildren about what liberty is in the hopes that they are able to overcome the government indoctrination that is present everywhere. So when the US finally falls, and China extends its tyrannical dictatorship around the world, my hope is that after several hundred years of tyranny, a group of right-minded individuals will remember what their grandparents and great-grandparents told them, and will rise up to re-establish a society based on respect for the individual, and the freedom which so accompanies such respect.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Doove

Oh, Genius? How so? I'm showing that tax revenues increased every year from 1960 on, except in '71, '83 (Reagan tax cut) and after Bush came into office (pretty much take your pick on which year).

Perhaps you can correct me.

I can correct you. In 2004, 5, 6, and 7 there were small increases. After dropping in 2001, it took until 2005 to exceed the revenue of 2000.
Revenues have increased every year from 1971until 2010 except for 1982 to 1983. Revenues also decreased from 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002, 2002 to 2003, 2007 to 2008, 2008 to 2009.
Revenues have increased during tax increases and during tax decreases. Max tax bracket was 70% until 1983 when it dropped to 50%. It remained 50% until 1987 when it dropped to 38.5 for 1 year. It dropped to 28% until 1991, increased to 31% for 2 years. In 1993 the top rate went up to 39.6% until the Bush tax cuts went into effect. 2001 max tax dropped to 39.1%. 2002 it dropped to 38.6%. 2003 it dropped to 35%.
Drops in revenue generally follow tax cuts. No drops in revenue have occurred following tax increases since 1971 (as far as CBO tables go).

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

[Doove]

MMM, apparently you didn't read my link.

[WTF]

These guys do not even understand the simplistic Laffer Curve...do you guys think that they will swayed by facts!

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm NOT a Tea Partier. You want more government control of the market, I want less. I want to see big business brought down by market forces, not government, because government never will.

I understand that I am a minority in this. Too many of our citizens have come to accept government control as normal. I have not. Liberty is the normal state of humankind. However, so long as the public has their TV, movies, sporting events, etc., they are content to allow the government to intrude ever more on their privacy and daily activities. I intend to do what I can to keep the dying flame of liberty alive, and I will tell my grandchildren about what liberty is in the hopes that they are able to overcome the government indoctrination that is present everywhere. So when the US finally falls, and China extends its tyrannical dictatorship around the world, my hope is that after several hundred years of tyranny, a group of right-minded individuals will remember what their grandparents and great-grandparents told them, and will rise up to re-establish a society based on respect for the individual, and the freedom which so accompanies such respect.

Monopoly is the most efficient business model. When big business goes unregulated they control the market place (Overstock.com VS. Goldman Sacs). They will decide which businesses fail or succeed. Think of Japan.
Regulation is not socialism and is one of the key factors that has kept us in some semblance of having an elected government and not living in a “Rollerball” world.

Liberty is not the normal state of mankind. Subjugation is. Look at the rest of the population of the earth. How many have liberty? What about “In order to form a more perfect union” don’t you get? It’s “more perfect”, not perfect.

Finally, I can’t see your version of our future being told to children rather than the “propaganda” the government supposedly teaches. Even though it failed to motivate or inspire your own children, you would indoctrinate your grandchildren that the US is doomed to fall to second-class status and remain there for several hundred years. Then magically, the words of relatives born 200 years into our decline, relatives who would have been most inspirational had they died opposing tyranny but who had learned to live under the yoke of China, will remember that placing a towel on their necks will reduce the chafing caused by wearing a yoke.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Doove

MMM, apparently you didn't read my link.

My "correction" (which rhymes with erection) was really just a "a tongue between London's cheeks" comment. CBO only goes back to 1971 (that I could find).

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by WTF

These guys do not even understand the simplistic Laffer Curve...do you guys think that they will swayed by facts!

Of course not. The mere fact that these people regularly read the bullshit that they post is proof of that. These posts don't come from research used to counter other opinions. They come from the websites of choice used by the posters. On top of that, they seldom do any research to confirm what they have posted.
The claim that the "Lamestream media" ignores many of these theories or stories because of some mysterious conspiracy is my favorite douche bag discharge. When you google a claim and get no results from a reputable news source, that should set off warning bells. Because what ever they are, news organizations are all trying to be the first with a story. If CNN had the chance to catch CBS in a lie, they would crucify them. They would not bury the story.

No, this is for my own personal edification and watching the supposed vendors of shit sandwiches eat hundreds of their own wares for each one they actually dispense.