A picture is worth a thousand words (or less)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So, since OWS is leaderless, some groups will invariably do things others do not....

like making demands. Demands are good, I think, for a movement. It's a target. And the target provides direction.

So, what direction do some OWS groups go in?
What are their demands?




I imagine this is a nearly universal demand among the Occupy movement.

Can we agree that a cuts only budget isn't acceptable?
No, of course not, some of you think taxes are slavery! Wait, I haven't seen Steve_P here in awhile. Maybe y'all don't think it's slavery. But I bet least one of y'all would disagree with a cuts only budget being unacceptable.

Can we agree we need new revenue? close loopholes? create jobs? (i do hope we all agree on jobs)

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Because if you agree with me, then you're right.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

the theory of democracy?

[readherring.livejournal.com]

I don't care if we agree. I just want to see us return to the days when we could disagree, yet reach some mostly equitable compromises.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by "create jobs?" You mean continue to artificially prop up the economy to take our indebtedness to even higher levels?

I thought the common theme of OWS was to wrest government from the control of corporate money -- not to offer juvenile opinions about economics.

Are you sure you're not working for the Other Side?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Corporations want less public spending--making everything private. Starve govt of money, make them cut services, make people turn to private solutions.

Some people don't have money?
fuckem. no healthcare.
fuckem. no education.
fuckem. no fire/police dept.

fix the 394 deficient bridges (http://act.aflcio.org/c/18/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=2895) in Washington state (where the pic was from)

that should create a couple jobs.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

But Naomi Wolf said the message was get money out of politics.

*confused*

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

how on earth do you think we'd get those things passed by congress?
;)

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I would think that would be more to the point.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If by closing loopholes, you mean reducing the tax code to a handful of pages I can read and fully comprehend in ten minutes, leaving little or no room for hidden back-door escape clauses, then yes, I want tax loopholes closed. That way, and no other way.

That's the minimum. I'd prefer shifting the tax code in favor of spending rather than earning and eliminate the IRS entirely, but I'll settle for the former in lieu of that.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

If a straightforward, comprehensible tax code were implemented, many accountants, lawyers and bureaucrats would lose their jobs.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

a handful of pages I can read

Oh no! You're voting Herman Cain!

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

As for job creation many of you are already aware of my contention on the complexity of trying to get predictable results in complex environments like economies so I'm hoping I won't have to go through why I believe it's futile in placing hope in the proposition that someone in a statehouse or capital building can arrange it from where they sit.

But if someone does need to see me present it again, I think I can dig up the last time I argued it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What about basic construction jobs?

Rebuilding roads and bridges? Those are easy enough for the state to make, should they allocate the funds to it, right?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Nope I wasn't aware of your contention.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

From those who believe other protests were entirely coherent.
This 1967 protest anthem had the words...
"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear"

But eventually some consistency evolved.
The message was always pretty clear though.
People were pissed off because something was wrong.

Today the Occupy crowds are streamlining their messages.
Now the right wing can ignore this too.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

They just need someone like Stills to write a song for it :D

Iirc the song song was based on an anti-war protest on the (Sunset) Strip;
according to a friend of mine who was there. (I might have been, but I was in SE Asia at the time...my friend went later and was in bomb disposal...he's still a little crazy :D)

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

It has been a long time since I heard this song. I think Pink Floyd's song Dogs is a better application of this whole affair. But what do I know, I'm just the poor SOB out here working a job, a blue collar red neck.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Can we agree that a cuts only budget isn't acceptable?

No. There's no reason not to consider it. Here's one (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203658804576637633052916922.html), for example, that would work. You may not like it, but it would work.

Can we agree we need new revenue?

Need? No. Might be nice, but not a requirement.

close loopholes?

Loopholes are merely tax breaks that you don't like, so you're not going to get agreement on that one.

create jobs? (i do hope we all agree on jobs)

Government can only create government jobs, so no, we don't want more of those.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

no, eliminating the EPA would not "work"

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's the Winter Garden at the World Financial Center right?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I believe it was Washington state.
Not certain though

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Can we agree that a cuts only budget isn't acceptable? Can we agree we need new revenue? close loopholes? create jobs? (i do hope we all agree on jobs)

At the end of the day, this assumes we still have a revenue problem as opposed to a spending one.



Revenues have shown a definite increase over time, and the recession has knocked them down somewhat. The problem is, especially under Obama, spending has now outpaced even what can be achieved by tax revenues. Th gap is too significant.

Can we agree we need new revenue? Not yet. The government is doing too much too quickly, and we need to cut back. So a "cuts-only budget" in order to start putting things in balance is not only more desirable, but outright necessary.

If the government shows an interest in reducing spending and reducing the burden on the taxpayers - taxpayers, by the way, which include small businesses and corporate entities - you'll see improvements across the board. For jobs, for spending, for overall improvements to the economy. Simply the knee-jerk "we need to tax the rich more," as if they're not already paying the lion's share of the taxes, does nothing to help the economy and little to fix the budget problem - remember, simply reversing the Bush tax cuts on the rich, according to the opponents, was going to "save" $700b over 10 years (http://www.democrats.com/end-bushs-700-billion-tax-cut-for-the-rich). $70b/year on average isn't even going to make a noticeable dent on a deficit on the wrong side of $1 trillion/year.

We've not had a "cuts only budget" in a long time, if ever (I haven't looked at postwar budgets and have no time to do so at the moment). We've tried the government creating jobs, it doesn't work. We could close tax loopholes, but those will impact "the 99%" quite harshly - corporate loopholes will simply be passed down in higher costs/fewer jobs, and seeing as "the 99%" begins somewhere under $400k/year, it will impact plenty of people who are not "rich" and even more small businesses that file taxes as individuals.

To me, the evidence is crystal clear - cuts only is the way to go. Cut until you can't cut anymore, and then we can start talking about "new revenue." Not before.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Oppose a cuts only budget in favor of what? There's a political party that's done well with saying no to anything and everything with no actual concept beyond the status quo, but OWS is supposed to be about *not* repeating what the GOP does so well.