News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[WhoWee]

Obviously, if you nearly triple rates you can expect to second (and higher) order effects to matter. You didn't really answer the point, do you know a macro model that suggests marginal tax rates have a first-order effect on unemployment? Is there such a model?

If you want a tax policy that creates jobs - the incentive/credit must be focused on new (domestic) investment into either expansion or start-up ventures. At the same time, the Government should try not to dictate where to start the business (ref empowerment zones), what type of business is acceptable (ref green), who to hire (ref union or diversity), what level of wages to pay, or delay development with years of environmental studies.

A serious "jobs plan" will need 2 basic components - 1.) tax incentives for direct investment into new domestic ventures (including a specific plan to bring capital back into the country) and 2.) the Government will need to lift it's foot from the throat of business - reign in regulatory initiatives.

 

[mheslep]

Obviously, if you nearly triple rates you can expect to second (and higher) order effects to matter. You didn't really answer the point, do you know a macro model that suggests marginal tax rates have a first-order effect on unemployment? Is there such a model?

At the moment I'm not really interested in the model. Empirically we know that long term tax rates impact output significantly, and thus sooner or later employment.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks, Christina Romer, David Romer.
U. Cal Berkeley, March 2007
www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=Romer][...]we find that a tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by about 3 percent, implying a substantial multiplier
[...][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Romer]In terms of consequences, there are six main findings. First, tax changes have very large effects on output.[/QUOTE]

Christina Romer is (was) Obama's chief econ adviser.

 

[ThomasT]

A serious "jobs plan" will need 2 basic components - 1.) tax incentives for direct investment into new domestic ventures (including a specific plan to bring capital back into the country) ...

Elaborate please. I'm asking, not disputing anything you've said. My experience is strictly small scale. But you learned about the 'big picture' in college, didn't you?

... and 2.) the Government will need to lift it's foot from the throat of business - reign in regulatory initiatives.

What will this entail?

 

[WhoWee]

Elaborate please. I'm asking, not disputing anything you've said. My experience is strictly small scale. But you learned about the 'big picture' in college, didn't you?

What will this entail?

There is about $1 Trillion in capital parked off-shore - basically sitting on the sidelines - waiting. That is the big picture.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-usa-debt-tax-offshore-idUSTRE76J79G20110720

"Unlike many nations, the United States taxes U.S.-based corporations' profits no matter where they are earned, with an important exemption. Taxes on active profits earned overseas do not have to be paid right away. Instead, they can be deferred as long as the profits are not brought home, or repatriated.

At present, an estimated $1 trillion in profits is being held offshore by U.S. companies. They pay taxes on those profits to the countries where the profits are held but not to the United States under the complex deferral system."

IMO - regulations are like weeds. They grow and grow, choking out healthy uses of capital and time. Legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was well intentioned - but (again IMO) an over-reaction to Enron.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml

The cost of compliance is considerable.
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/the-cost-of-compliance-sarbanesoxley-000474.php

"A recent survey of corporate boards by RHR International reveals annual Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs average $16 million—a jump of 77 percent from last year.
Sarbanes-Oxley requirements have caused companies such as GE to spend a reported $30 million on internal control requirements alone. Last May, AIG chairman and CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg indicated that the world's largest insurer was spending $300 million a year fulfilling the new requirements."

 

[Bacle2]

At the moment I'm not really interested in the model. Empirically we know that long term tax rates impact output significantly, and thus sooner or later employment.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks, Christina Romer, David Romer.
U. Cal Berkeley, March 2007
www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf[/URL]





Christina Romer is (was) Obama's chief econ adviser.[/QUOTE]

How do you then explain overall economic/GDP growth between 1947-1975 , when marginal tax rates were as high as 70%? How about Sweden's consistent economic growth, while having a similarly-high tax rate?

Besides, at least from what I understood, it is stated in p.2, that the negative impacts on economic activity are restricted to the exogenous increases in taxes, and not to all types of increases.

 

[WhoWee]

How do you then explain overall economic/GDP growth between 1947-1975 , when marginal tax rates were as high as 70%?

After WWII - how many major countries had 100% of their manufacturing base still intact, raided the German scientific community, and maintained a military presence in former hot spots - then geared up for the Cold War (and were not Communist)?

 

[Bacle2]

After WWII - how many major countries had 100% of their manufacturing base still intact, raided the German scientific community, and maintained a military presence in former hot spots - then geared up for the Cold War (and were not Communist)?

But then it would seem that under some conditions a high tax rate either helps economic growth, or at least it does not impede it, and that a higher tax rate alone is not necessarily hurtful (maybe even helpful) to the economy. Maybe the tax rates were not based on the exogenous factors referred-to in the paper.

 

[WhoWee]

But then it would seem that under some conditions a high tax rate either helps economic growth, or at least it does not impede it, and that a higher tax rate alone is not necessarily hurtful (maybe even helpful) to the economy. Maybe the tax rates were not based on the exogenous factors referred-to in the paper.

Or perhaps the economy grew in spite of the tax rate?

 

[Bacle2]

Or perhaps the economy grew in spite of the tax rate?

Yes, you're right; it may be necessary to see more papers that try to carefully isolate the impact of different factors. Maybe some factor analysis of some sort, or more case studies in different countries.

 

[mheslep]

How do you then explain overall economic/GDP growth between 1947-1975 , when marginal tax rates were as high as 70%?

Rates were as high as 90% until Kennedy's cuts in the 60's. I argue the following:

1. Given that federal revenue http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-47.pdf" , I conclude that much income in that period was sheltered from the top rate by tax shelters and deductions. Reagan's dramatic marginal rate cuts did not come into effect until ~1982-3, so the low growth stagflation period 75-82 should also be included in an examination of the US high tax rate period.
2. State and local tax burdens were lower prior to the 70's. NJ for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey#20th_century"; today it has one of the highest income tax rates in the US. Connecticut had no income tax on wages and so on.
3. Federal regulation was much less burdensome. EPA, OSHA, NIOSH were all created in the 70's. In general the rule making, law enforcement and administrative arms of the federal government have greatly increased since the 1960s.

How about Sweden's consistent economic growth, while having a similarly-high tax rate?

Has Sweden had consistent economic growth? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sweden+real+GDP"

 

[MarcoD]

Rates were as high as 90% until Kennedy's cuts in the 60's.

The tax rates are nonsense. During the middle sixties [hmm that may have been fifties, forgot] half of agriculture was still done with horses. In the period 50-90 there was just an enormous 'internal space' in the economy for mechanization, industrialization, and later automization. That 'internal space' is now saturated, there is no room anymore for growth except 'delusional' monetary growth (like housing bubbles).

If the US wants jobs, they need to close borders and start manufacturing their own goods again; the tax rates don't matter.

 

[mheslep]

The tax rates are nonsense. During the middle sixties half of agriculture was still done with horses. In the period 50-90 there was just an enormous 'internal space' in the economy for mechanization, industrialization, and later automization. That 'internal space' is now saturated, there is no room anymore for growth except 'delusional' monetary growth (like housing bubbles)...

How does that theory explain Apple, now the most valuable company in the world, with a market capitalization roughly equal to Austria's entire annual income?

 

[MarcoD]

How does that theory explain Apple, now the most valuable company in the world, with a market capitalization roughly equal to Austria's entire annual income?

Well, how many jobs does Apple create? And how many jobs were lost in the car industry?

 

[mheslep]

Well, how many jobs does Apple create? And how many jobs were lost in the car industry?

Whatever the number, do you think that Apple employment and, say, 3rd party developer jobs for iPhone applications (+500K apps) would increase or decrease if American were to "close borders" as you suggest? Should the US government close all the foreign owned US based auto plants including Toyota's (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_10/b4024071.htm"

http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en...l212l731l1.2.2l5l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we"
IBM 426,751
HP 324,600
Verizon Communications 195,900
Oracle 109,388
Dell 100,300
Intel 99,900
Microsoft 90,000
Apple 46,600

 

[MarcoD]

Whatever the number, do you think that Apple employment and, say, 3rd party developer jobs for iPhone applications (+500K apps) would increase or decrease if American were to "close borders" as you suggest?

Not a lot would happen. IPhones would just be build in the US, you'ld need to sponsor them, probably though.

Should the US government close all the foreign owned US based auto plants including Toyota's (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_10/b4024071.htm" )?

Yes. Why not? In a few years, it'll close and end up in China anyway.

Should the US government cut off crude oil imports from Canada (#1) and Mexico (#2)?

No. You need to trade goods for oil.

Should it also cut off US corn exports to the worldhttp://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=corn&graph=production"

Maybe. You need ethanol in the long run anyway.

http://www.google.com/finance?hl=en...l212l731l1.2.2l5l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we"

IBM 426,751
HP 324,600
Verizon Communications 195,900
Oracle 109,388
Dell 100,300
Intel 99,900
Microsoft 90,000
Apple 46,600

World wide numbers I guess. Which brings us to the original question: How many people does Apple employ in the US?

[ Anyway. I expect the number of Apple employees to be round 15-25% range, so around 10,000. Most of the profit will be parked outside of the US, most of the investment/costs goes into building the (foreign) factories, buying (foreign) components, paying foreign and local salaries. Some of the dividend, some marketing money, ends up in the US. How much does Apple do for the US? ]

 

[ParticleGrl]

At the moment I'm not really interested in the model. Empirically we know that long term tax rates impact output significantly, and thus sooner or later employment.

The evidence isn't as clear cut as you suggest. The Romer paper comes in with significantly higher estimates than lots of other papers that attempted similar work. This isn't surprising- estimating the effect of tax cuts is a nightmare, there are simply way to many confounding variables (I assume we both agree that marginal brackets of 90% should be high enough to hurt growth, but US history wouldn't play that out). The Romer paper also notes that more recent cuts have had smaller impacts.

And most of the empirical literature will support my broader point- spending is far more relevant to jobs than marginal rates. In the long term, of course, spending and tax rates have to converge, but in the short term, there is no reason this has to be true, especially with the market offering free money.

 

[WhoWee]

The evidence isn't as clear cut as you suggest. The Romer paper comes in with significantly higher estimates than lots of other papers that attempted similar work. This isn't surprising- estimating the effect of tax cuts is a nightmare, there are simply way to many confounding variables (I assume we both agree that marginal brackets of 90% should be high enough to hurt growth, but US history wouldn't play that out). The Romer paper also notes that more recent cuts have had smaller impacts.

And most of the empirical literature will support my broader point- spending is far more relevant to jobs than marginal rates. In the long term, of course, spending and tax rates have to converge, but in the short term, there is no reason this has to be true, especially with the market offering free money.

my bold

I thought you were in favor of 90%+ marginal rates?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=500843&page=9

"Originally Posted by WhoWee
I provided a VERY specific example - assume the $500k is possible - would YOU risk $1.0 Million cash and a $1.0Million loan - if the tax rate was 91%? Do you even have to think about it at a 35% (or less) tax rate?

Response by ParticleGrl
I ran the numbers for you. At a top rate of 91%, you still clear 200k a year. Thats a 10% return and doesn't include the equity in your business. That is a fantastic investment- of course I would."

 

[ParticleGrl]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=500843&page=9[/url]

All I said was that your hypothetical business was a fantastic investment even with 90% marginal rates. That doesn't indicate a favor of the rates, it means that your hypothetical rate wouldn't discourage me from starting your hypothetical business.

 

[OmCheeto]

... the business model has to be realistic.

I was reminded of your post when I read the following yesterday:

...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576645480987452682.html"
OCTOBER 22, 2011
...
The group[OWS] has about $450,000 in donations.
...

Wow. Who'd have thought camping out in a city park could be so lucrative.

So I had to figure out how many people were in this "business":

Somewhere between 100 and 200 people sleep in Zuccotti Park.

So that's $3000 per person, based on 150 people. Divided by 35 days they've been there yields about $86 per person per day. meh. I'll keep my day job.

This morning I ran across a quote by the President in the wiki article that I thought was interesting:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/wall-street-corruption-solyndra-and-fast-furious-todays-qs-for-o-1062011/" ...

Thank you, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Jackie’s question, one of the reasons why so many of the people at the Occupy Wall Street protests are so angry is because, as you say, so many people on Wall Street did not follow the rules.
...

Well, first, on the issue of — on the issue of prosecutions on Wall Street, one of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehman’s and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless.

...

hmm... I'm late for work.

 

[nsaspook]

Waring with the police will strip this movement to the core of people who are just angry at the 'unjust' world and love to raise hell. This leaderless movement has entered the degeneration stage and will implode soon unless something changes.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/us/occupy-wall-steet/index.html?&hpt=hp_c1

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19188125

Michael Porter, 24, works full time selling DirectTV, has camped at the Occupy Oakland site for the last 8 days.
He was disheartened to see everyone disperse last night-- down to 30 people after 3 a.m.
"We lost a lot of them because of the tear gas. And it was because of stupid people who were provoking the
cops. It's random people who see a big group and are like, 'let's start a riot.' All it takes is one thing and it's like let's gas everyone. And I kind of understand where the cops are coming from as far as responding to signs of aggression. That's why we've got to keep those people out."

 

[edward]

The conservatives aren't about to let OCW alone.

A conservative journalist has admitted to infiltrating the group of protesters who clashed with security at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on Saturday — and he openly claims to have helped instigate the events that prompted the museum to close.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...useum-protest/2011/10/09/gIQAIKxCYL_blog.html

 

[Bacle2]

Maybe this is what fueling some of the protesters:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

It seems like the higher-up you are, the more your situation
has improved in the period: 1979-2007.

 

[Evo]

The conservatives aren't about to let OCW alone.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...useum-protest/2011/10/09/gIQAIKxCYL_blog.html

This was the act of an individual, I don't see any claims that he acted as part of a conservative organization.

Just like that daft woman that got arrested in NY acted alone, he acted alone. There will be stupid acts by stupid people, let's not make misleading claims that they represent any group of people.

As unorganized as these social media gatherings are, I don't see that there is any group being represented. They appear to be nothing more than an annoyance to the every day people that want to visit these areas.

Funny that I don't hear about these gatherings and I read the news daily. If it weren't for reading this thread, I wouldn't be aware of any gatherings after the initial arrests in NY. Is it safe to say that most Americans aren't even aware of these small gatherings?

IMO to above.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe this is what fueling some of the protesters:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

It seems like the higher-up you are, the more your situation
has improved in the period: 1979-2007.

Haven't average wages increased over 300% in that time frame?
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

 

[daveb]

The conservatives aren't about to let OCW alone.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...useum-protest/2011/10/09/gIQAIKxCYL_blog.html

Howley, in fact, chides the protesters for not taking his lead and rushing into the museum after being pepper-sprayed. “In the absence of ideological uniformity, these protesters have no political power. Their only chance, as I saw it, was to push the envelope and go bold. But, if today’s demonstration was any indicator, they don’t have what it takes to even do that.”

And how would he have written his story if they did take his lead - he might have called them a dangerous mob? Seems like they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.

 

[WhoWee]

Has this "movement" named a political candidate they support yet?

 

[mheslep]

The evidence isn't as clear cut as you suggest. The Romer paper comes in with significantly higher estimates than lots of other papers that attempted similar work ... And most of the empirical literature will support my broader point- spending is far more relevant to jobs than marginal rates.

Such as? Do you have some particular source in mind?

In the long term, of course, spending and tax rates have to converge, but in the short term, there is no reason this has to be true,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python)" and consume accordingly, that is, they know deficit spending now equates to taxes in the future.

...especially with the market offering free money.

Money would only be cheap if the US federal government had a small debt that it could pay off in the short term, or could borrow all its money long term for nothing. But the US does not, can not. It has a near $15T debt continually maturing which must be continually rolled over, some it as short as monthly as the debt limit crises highlighted. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2009_2016USk_13s1li111mcn_90f" Then there is the issue of crowding out of small borrowers by traditional lenders content to sit instead on the flood of US debt, which we've been through elsewhere.

 

[Evo]

Has this "movement" named a political candidate they support yet?

Some "unofficial" poll done by a reporter in NY said that most people claimed to be libertarian. Now, how many asked know what that means, who knows.

Ok, here's a Fox news video. One guy paid people to protest. It was for rent control in NYC. There just is just no overall point to these people gathering, they aren't unified, there just a few people want this, a few people want that, others just want to hang out. Crazy.

Judge Napolitano: Libertarian 'Occupy Wall Street' Protesters Are Voting For Ron Paul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW0zaKEIenI

 

[mheslep]

Maybe this is what fueling some of the protesters:

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

It seems like the higher-up you are, the more your situation
has improved in the period: 1979-2007.

Yes http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2009/06/30/millionaires-club-record-plunge-in-2008.aspx" Decades ago in recessions the wealthy tended to see less change in their income than the rest of society, now not so much.

The most significant declines in the [millionaires] population in 2008 occurred in the three largest regions: North America (-19.0%)

Number of world billionaires slumps by a third

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-of-world-billionaires-slumps-by-a-third.html

 

[WhoWee]

Some "unofficial" poll done by a reporter in NY said that most people claimed to be libertarian. Now, how many asked know what that means, who knows.

Ok, here's a Fox news video. One guy paid people to protest. It was for rent control in NYC. There just is just no overall point to these people gathering, they aren't unified, there just a few people want this, a few people want that, others just want to hang out. Crazy.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW0zaKEIenI

My bold
If rent is the problem - they should love Jimmy McMillan.
http://www.rentistoodamnhigh.org/

 

[ParticleGrl]

Such as? Do you have some particular source in mind?

Look at work done by Valerie Ramey at UCSD on fiscal stimulus. For other estimates on tax rates, simply follow the references in the Romer/Romer paper.

Monty Python not withstanding, people expect the future and consume accordingly, that is, they know deficit spending now equates to taxes in the future.

I thought we were talking about empirical work, not models? The empirical problems with the permanent income hypothesis (and Ricardian equivalence) are old enough to be textbook. See chapter 7 of Romer's macro book. To sum up- predictable changes in income lead to predictable changes in consumption, which wouldn't hold under the hypothesis.

Also, the micro-experiments on rational expectations consistently demonstrate that consumers don't behave rationally. Humans have systematic biases (I think it was Kahneman who started this research?) Its why I personally find all the RBC models somewhat suspect. They aren't empirically grounded.

Then there is the issue of crowding out of small borrowers by traditional lenders content to sit instead on the flood of US debt, which we've been through elsewhere.

What you are describing isn't crowding out, as I've mentioned before. Crowding out occurs as interest rates rise on government debt, so its more profitable to loan to the government than to private enterprise. Right now, it IS more profitable to loan to private enterprise than buy government debt. Please see Romer's macro book, or any macro book.

The traditional worry with huge debt and low rates is hyperinflation, not crowding out. Clearly we aren't suffering hyper inflation (tripling the monetary base has resulted in fairly low inflation).

I agree the deficit is a worry in the future- but huge unemployment is a worry now. I don't remember who said it- but if your house is on fire you put it out, even if you might flood the basement.

 

[russ_watters]

Haven't average wages increased over 300% in that time frame?
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

Not inflation adjusted.

I need to read the CBO report: the numbers cited in the news articles don't seem to match the census dept numbers.

 

[ThomasT]

Haven't average wages increased over 300% in that time frame?
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

I don't know, but it seems to me that prices have increased more than wages and salaries during the past 35 years or so ... ie., the buying power of the average consumer has decreased. Is this correct?

 

[ThomasT]

I agree the deficit is a worry in the future- but huge unemployment is a worry now. I don't remember who said it- but if your house is on fire you put it out, even if you might flood the basement.

ParticleGrl, most of your statements are way over my head (I know very little of formal economic theory). So, if I might ask a straightforward question, what exactly do you think needs to be done in order to get things moving in a positive direction (and I'll leave defining "positive direction" up to you)?

 

[ThomasT]

While I'm here let me reiterate my support for any and all protests against those who would take undue advantage of the wonderful freedoms that we enjoy in the US ... unscrupulous Wall Street grifters, compromised/corrupt politicians, and such.

 

[OmCheeto]

While I'm here let me reiterate my support for any and all protests against those who would take undue advantage of the wonderful freedoms that we enjoy in the US ... unscrupulous Wall Street grifters, compromised/corrupt politicians, and such.

After reading an article in yesterday's paper, I'd like to reiterate my support for more mental health taxation:

http://wweek.com/portland/article-18140-notes_from_the_occupation.html"
48 hours inside Occupy Portland.
October 26th, 2011 AARON MESH | Cover Story
...
Just after midnight Friday, Mike decides to go to the cops. Two Portland police officers stand on the corner, known outside Occupy Portland as Southwest 4th Avenue and Main Street. He tells one cop he wants DJ Nick arrested if he returns.

The cop says they’ve already tried to deal with DJ Nick. They sent him up to [the] University hospital. He refused treatment.

“We can cite him,” the patrolman says. “We couldn’t hold him.”

“What you need to do,” Mike tells him, “is drive him past [the university hospital] and drop him off. It’ll take him a couple of days to get back.”
...

[edited for the non-locals]

I heard someone complain that the OWS'ers were pooping on cop cars.

umm...

Occupy everything is probably being occupied by the homeless nutcases in every city. (Hello! Free food?)

 

[Evo]

While I'm here let me reiterate my support for any and all protests against those who would take undue advantage of the wonderful freedoms that we enjoy in the US ... unscrupulous Wall Street grifters, compromised/corrupt politicians, and such.

Isn't the ability to make money on Wall street part of those wonderful freedoms we enjoy?

 

[ThomasT]

Isn't the ability to make money on Wall street part of those wonderful freedoms we enjoy?

Sure, but not if it's done in an unscrupulous, devious way that will eventually negatively affect the entire economy. These people knew what they were doing. They knew that it would eventually hurt millions of people. But they did it anyway, because it was a way for them to make LOTS of easy money, and because it wasn't exactly, precisely 'illegal' at the time, and because there was virtually no governmental supervision of their activities.

The bottom line is that we can't trust anybody. This is what the American system of government is supposed to be based on, ie., the realization that anybody, everybody is corruptible. And it sure seems that what should be our most revered institutions are corrupted from top to bottom. This is what these protests/demonstrations are about.

The problem is that the institutions that are supposed to be checking and balancing each other are, apparently, all corrupted.

 

[Galteeth]

An incident that occurred during the tuesday night protests in Oakland (occupiers who had been cleared out by police were protesting) is getting some viral attention. Regardless of how you feel about the protests, it's certainly a dramatic and emotionally charged incident.


(clearest video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...l?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec3_lnk2|107736
(article)

http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-to-police-you-did-this-to-my-brother-2011-10

 

[ThomasT]

After reading an article in yesterday's paper, I'd like to reiterate my support for more mental health taxation:


[edited for the non-locals]

I heard someone complain that the OWS'ers were pooping on cop cars.

umm...

Occupy everything is probably being occupied by the homeless nutcases in every city. (Hello! Free food?)

Yes, what you're talking about here is a problem. But do you think that there's no reason for the demonstrations (assuming that a majority of the demonstrators are 'legititmate')?

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't the ability to make money on Wall street part of those wonderful freedoms we enjoy?

I don't think most people realize the level of education and licensing required to work (at the level being scrutinized) on Wall Street.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...00615456.html?mod=WSJ_Careers_CareerJournal_4


A quick look at licenses:
http://gyl.com/license-stockbroker.html

 

[WhoWee]

An incident that occurred during the tuesday night protests in Oakland (occupiers who had been cleared out by police were protesting) is getting some viral attention. Regardless of how you feel about the protests, it's certainly a dramatic and emotionally charged incident.


(clearest video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...l?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl8|sec3_lnk2|107736
(article)

http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-to-police-you-did-this-to-my-brother-2011-10

From your Huffington link - regarding why the Iraq Vet was protesting:

""He doesn't agree with the way the banks aren't regulated, the way they drove the economy in the ground. He wants there to be regulation of the banks," Shannon said."

Newsflash - banks ARE regulated. Also, how exactly did the banks drive the economy into the ground? Last, what specific regulations do the protesters want ?

 

[Evo]

This is what these protests/demonstrations are about.

I can't tell what people are supposedly protesting, it seems they are all over the place. Perhaps the largest group wants rich people to give them money. I don't get it. What do they mean by this? Do they mean higher taxes on the rich? Because listening to the rants of some of these protesters, you'd think that they actually intend for the rich to write them checks or something similar. The protestors also don't understand that the first ammendment part that gives them a right to peacefully assembly doesn't mean anywhere, anytime. Duh. Perhaps this woman should check with the ACLU that would tell her, local and state laws must be followed.

Listen to this clueless woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/phoenixktvk3tv-15751070/occupy-phoenix-protesters-arrested-12-nights-ago-spend-day-in-court-27079167.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fphoenixktvk3tv-15751070%252Foccupy-phoenix-protesters-arrested-12-nights-ago-spend-day-in-court-27079167.html

Occupy Boston protests could cost city $2 million in police overtime

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protests-could-cost-city-2m-in-police-overtime-20111012#ixzz1c2XrW5Au

I've read the cost for NYC is already $3.5 million. This is so wrong.

 

[ThomasT]

I can't tell what people are supposedly protesting, it seems they are all over the place. Perhaps the largest group wants rich people to give them money. I don't get it. What do they mean by this? Do they mean higher taxes on the rich? Because listening to the rants of some of these protesters, you'd think that they actually intend for the rich to write them checks or something similar. The protestors also don't understand that the first ammendment part that gives them a right to peacefully assemble doesn't mean anywhere, anytime. Duh.

Listen to this clueless woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/phoenixktvk3tv-15751070/occupy-phoenix-protesters-arrested-12-nights-ago-spend-day-in-court-27079167.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fphoenixktvk3tv-15751070%252Foccupy-phoenix-protesters-arrested-12-nights-ago-spend-day-in-court-27079167.html



Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protests-could-cost-city-2m-in-police-overtime-20111012#ixzz1c2XrW5Au

I've read the cost for NYC is already $3.5 million. This is so wrong.

Police are highly overpaid and underworked, imho. So these numbers are essentially meaningless.

Why would I want to listen to a 'clueless' woman?

As I said in a previous post, if you think there's no reason to protest, then fine. You're against the demonstrators, and for the status quo. Just keep in mind that the status quo is what created the financial crisis, the governmental debt, and the rising unemployment.

 

[Galteeth]

From your Huffington link - regarding why the Iraq Vet was protesting:

""He doesn't agree with the way the banks aren't regulated, the way they drove the economy in the ground. He wants there to be regulation of the banks," Shannon said."

Newsflash - banks ARE regulated. Also, how exactly did the banks drive the economy into the ground? Last, what specific regulations do the protesters want ?

As you know, there are diverse groups being represented here. Marxists, libertarians, frustrated democrats, frustrated average people, anarchists. I can't speak for Scott Olsen, and i certainly don't agree with everything people at OWS say.

 

[Evo]

Police are highly overpaid and underworked, imho. So these numbers are essentially meaningless.

These are real costs, not imaginary.

 

[Galteeth]

These are real costs, not imaginary.

But it is not correct to say that these costs are being created by the protestors. There's little to suggest the extra police presence is warranted.

 

[Evo]

But it is not correct to say that these costs are being created by the protestors. There's little to suggest the extra police presence is warranted.

The costs are directly caused by the protestors as there would be no need without their presence. Police are needed 24/7 in areas where they otherwise would not be needed. If these people went home, no extra costs.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I know if I were inclined to camp out in an inner city area, I would LOVE to have police protection.

IMO, a directed letter writing campaign to one's representaitives would be so much more effective. Politicians care about being re-elected, the protests don't impact them, therefor, they don't care, they don't feel threatened, so there is no need to do anything.

 

[jambaugh]

Police are highly overpaid and underworked, imho.

My stepfather's grandson got all patriotic after 9-11 and joined the NYPD. He's written a semi-fictional book about his experience which you ought to read if this is really your opinion... it's a funny and enlightening read: https://www.amazon.com/dp/159691159X/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

 

[Galteeth]

The costs are directly caused by the protestors as there would be no need without their presence. Police are needed 24/7 in areas where they otherwise would not be needed. If these people went home, no extra costs.

I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Yes, I agree with that. I will say that if you watch the videos, in oakland at least, the police were being far more disruptive then the protestors.