Occupy Wall Street - Page 124

On October 28 2011 11:59 finalboss2 wrote:

do you have any evidence that this actually happens.

On October 28 2011 12:17 Tien wrote:



usdebtclock.org

That's where your tax money goes. Giving the government more tax revenue is not gonna make you guys any wealthier.

On October 28 2011 09:41 7hm wrote:
It's amazing what a little history and knowledge of economy actually puts things in perspective as to why we are where we are now.

http://the53.tumblr.com/

On October 28 2011 11:59 finalboss2 wrote:

do you have any evidence that this actually happens.

The annual budget deficit is the difference between actual cash collections and budgeted spending (a partial measure of total spending) during a given fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. Since 1970, the U.S. federal government has run deficits for all but four years (1998–2001)[48] contributing to a total debt of $14.0 trillion as of December 2010.[49] The fiscal year 2010 "total budget" deficit was $1.29 trillion or 8.9% GDP, down from $1.41 trillion or 10.0% GDP in 2009. These deficits are considerably higher than pre-crisis levels, which ranged from a $236 billion (2.4% GDP) surplus in 2000 to a $459 billion (3.2% GDP) deficit in 2008.[8]

The national debt increase during a given year is not the same as the "total budget" deficit commonly reported, due to a variety of accounting complexities involved. These differences can make it more challenging to determine how much the government actually spends relative to tax revenues. The increase in the national debt during a given year is a helpful measure to determine this amount. From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average. For the first time in FY 2008, the U.S. added $1 trillion to the national debt as the effects of a severe global financial crisis became apparent. Debt increases rose to $1.88 trillion in 2009 and $1.65 trillion in 2010 as the crisis continued.[50] In relative terms, from 2003-2007 the government spent roughly $1.20 for each $1.00 it collected in taxes. This increased to $1.40 in FY2008 and $1.90 in FY2009.

The total federal debt is divided into "debt held by the public" and "intra-governmental debt." The debt held by the public refers to U.S. government securities or other obligations held by investors (e.g., bonds, bills and notes), while Social Security and other federal trust funds are part of the intra-governmental debt. As of August 31, 2011 the total debt was $14.7 trillion, with debt held by the public of $10.0 trillion and intragovernmental debt of $4.7 trillion.[51] Debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP rose from 34.7% in 2000 to 40.3% in 2008 and 62.1% in 2010.[52] U.S. GDP was approximately $14.5 trillion during 2010 and an estimated $15 trillion for 2011 based on activity during the first two quarters.[53] This means the total debt is roughly the size of GDP.

On October 28 2011 12:57 BioNova wrote:

What a deficit is by definition? How much is ours?, How many taxes we have(not low) currently, and what it would take to support Government at current levels, plus projected growth of government spending. This as you say 'is' happening.

In a show of good faith today, Google touted the fact that it has refused to cooperate with local law enforcement agencies in the U.S. who requested the removal of YouTube videos of police brutality and criticisms of law enforcement officials. Google cited its transparency report from the first half of this year, but to mention it today is telling. With violent crackdowns at Occupy Oakland this week, citizen media like YouTube have been a vital channel. From Google's January-to-June transparency report:

"We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests."

"The whole world is watching," as protesters around the country have reminded officials since they first began to occupy Wall Street. With this week's escalations, now would not be a good time for Google to engage in censorship. The wording of its notice about denying the removal requests is encouraging, but it's carefully chosen to suit a particular situation.

Google complies with 93% of U.S. removal requests. It has decided that the best course of action is to maintain transparency and respond on a case-by-case basis. That transparency has upset governments, and the refusal to censor police brutality videos surely made some city officials unhappy.

But Google's record is spotty. Just this month, it handed over a WikiLeaks volunteer's Gmail data to the U.S. government, which used an old and controversial law to request it without a warrant from a judge. Google is pushing for updated laws that better reflect the media of today, but in the meantime, its record on upholding free speech is touch-and-go. Google has done the right thing with these police takedown requests, but the world should keep watching.

On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:



What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%.

(Reuters) - Sluggish income growth led U.S. households to cut back on saving in September to raise their spending, showing the economy's recovery remains fragile.

Consumer spending increased 0.6 percent, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after a 0.2 percent gain in August. However, incomes edged up only 0.1 percent after a 0.1 percent August drop.

The solid increase in consumer spending -- which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity -- lends momentum to fourth-quarter output, but the economy could flag if income growth does not pick up.

"Consumers are really walking a tight rope here. They don't have much room and it's easy for them to lose balance with very modest shifts in hiring, the cost of food and everything," said Steve Blitz, senior economist, ITG Investment Research in New York.

After Scott Olsen, a two-tour Iraq war veteran, suffered a skull fracture Tuesday when police shot Occupy Oakland protestors with rubber bullets and threw flash bang and tear gas grenades at them, you might think that the Justice Department would investigate.

After all, the Justice Department has the power and responsibility to investigate state and local police violations of Americans’ constitutional rights.

Sorry, Scott Olsen. Sorry, Occupy. No such luck.

The Obama Justice Department has not opened an investigation, spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa told Wired.

That’s despite Oakland having a long history of abusing protestors. Just last month, a federal judge hinted that he would take over the department for failing to rein in rogue policing practices identified in a consent decree from 2003 that the department has failed to obey. The National Lawyers Guild contends police violated that order again Tuesday.

Oakland’s paramilitary response was no accident.

Oakland assembled a small army of police decked out in paramilitary gear, comprised of officers from 18 California police units. Their task was to evict the protestors from what’s been one of the most organized Occupy events in the country, because the city said the protest site was dirty.

This week, we'll discuss media coverage of the Occupy movements as cities begin to crack down on demonstrators and dismantle camps. Occupy Oakland has received international attention after it was raided by the Oakland Police. How are protests in the US covered in other parts of the word? We'll be joined by the New York Review of Books' Jeff Madrick and Alternet's Josh Holland and Guardian's Zoe Williams. Where did you see the best reporting this week?

This week on CounterSpin: Did the corporate media turn on the Occupy Wall Street protests? When the protests started, the media story was a familiar one—the press ignored them, then derided activists for being leaderless, bongo pounding know-nothings. But then something happened, and suddenly anti-Wall Street activism is leading the nightly newscasts and splashed on the front page. Independent journalist and co-founder of the Occupied Wall Street Journal Arun Gupta will join us to talk about this shift--and what the media is still not getting quite right.

This week on CounterSpin: Yes, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations aren't being covered much in the corporate media. But then when papers like the New York Times come down to take a look, one might wish they hadn't. We'll talk to Allison Kilkenny of Citizen Radio about the quality and quantity of media coverage of Occupy Wall Street.

On October 28 2011 14:19 InvalidID wrote:



What do you mean taxes are not low? They are extremely low. The following is a graph of the historic marginal income tax for the highest bracket: The only times in the last 100 years that they have been lower have been extremely short periods in the 1920s and the late 1980's early 1990s. Guess what happened when Regan lowered taxes in the 1980s? A massive increase in the deficit, and no major stimulus to economic growth. Note that in the "golden age" of the American middle class, in the 1950's-1960's the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket was 90%.

On October 29 2011 10:57 Danglars wrote:


Tax revenue increased due the Reagan tax cuts. The deficit still grew because Congress outspent the increase. Growth too, spanning many years. These things aren't passed in a vacuum - recessions still cyclically occur. Take data from 1981 (top marginal rates cut) to 1988.

No, we're not idiots for believing tax cuts generate economic growth and, when taxes are high, even get additional revenue