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

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I forgive those heathens. They knew not what a pizza was until very recently.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The 1% are peeplez too, omg!

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's the Asians turn to have a US prez now! Rotation!

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Good call, it also prevents the abomonation that is Chicago style pizza.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Smokers and cigarettes, I get it.

The question is how big the slice is.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

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

How about a simple "eliminate tax breaks"? All of them.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

No.

I've been saying this long enough, Cain's the one hopping on my bandwagon. It's just when he says it, it sounds more like a soundbite than sincerity.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

What I say about the stimulus here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1181874.html?thread=93788338#t93788338) (for full effect read the whole thread) also applies to the concept of any appearance of success or failure in the way of job creation, for similar reasons.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

He ripped off your 9-9-9 plan too?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I know the answer for myself, but I'm just one person and nothing more.

Offtopic: I like eating slowly, cos the pleasure is longer this way. So people would often tell me "You eat too much". But I don't eat too much, I just eat too slowly. That's people and perception for ya. Food for thought.

Oh, I'm hungry now...

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Nah, I don't propose plans that sound like pizza deals ;)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The temptation is to say that if you don't like the EPA then you necessarily want the environment to go to shit, or at the least you don't care about it.

I disagree, I do think there are those that do feel EXACTLY that way.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The 1% doesn't make enough money to do that and still fund everything we're funding now. The math doesn't work.

[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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Could be math!

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I am going to send you $5 to buy a home.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't doubt it.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I agree 100% with your last sentence!

[404.livejournal.com]

If you don't vote to keep the EPA, the dog get's it!



See how silly your argument comes across?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I'm an accountant. What do you mean by "these people"?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I would certainly have no problem getting rid of most or all of the government subsidies that are in the tax code. I'm only objecting here to the use of the term "loophole", which is implying that someone is taking advantage of something that was overlooked in the system, which isn't the case. The "loopholes" are a feature, not a bug.

Re: ack!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Define: "work"

Get rid of the budget deficit and reduce the debt over time.

And 'only 1 trillion' in cuts?

It's a good start.

what makes you think that some business is going to protect the interests of First Nation Tribes?

I don't think they can do much worse than the gov't has so far.

buy up the public land and strip it of resources?

A business with a vested interest in maintaining the resources does not strip them.

Business is what got this mess in the first place.

Business with government power is what got this mess. Since you can't get rid of businesses, the next best thing is to get rid of government power.

There is no inherent need for public services.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And it generally does the latter, even when it claims it's doing the former.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with that, but I don't think you'll get agreement on it.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Loopholes are merely tax breaks that you don't like, so you're not going to get agreement on that one. -- If they want ALL "tax loopholes" closed, then that should also include the child tax credit. Why should the government give away more money based on the number of children one has?

Speaking of creating jobs and closing tax loopholes:
"Government can’t replace -- can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said. [Politico] (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0910/Obama_government_cant_create_jobs.html)

Also: Creation Myth (http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/10/creation-myth) Governments are worse than no good at creating jobs