Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party...The proof is in the polls!

THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE #OOCUPYEVERYTHING - OCCUPY TOGETHER - #OCCUPYWALLSTREET MOVEMENTS AND ALL ASSOCIATED MARCHES & OCCUPATIONS THROUGHOUT THE PLANET CURRENTLY :

This group wants absolutely nothing to do with the corrupt 2 party oligarchy as both have been bought and paid by the banks, The Federal Reserve and Wall Street and does not need nor require money from 1%'rs and to say anything otherwise is a major dis service to this group and movement as a whole as we see people like Soros as being apart of the problem and does not endorse millionaires or billionaires. No corporate dollars are welcomed and if one were to attempt to finance this movement it would be rejected and returned with a note saying "No sale!"!

To believe anything else means you are being seriously deceived and tricked and said source should not be trusted or taken seriously and if it does not come from the aforementioned it is not to be taken as the official stance. No General Assembly in any group throughout the planet will amend this ever!

All are welcomed from all faiths, ethnic groups, political persuasions, LBGTI, animal and kid friendly as we will not discriminate, we will be friendly to all. Illicit narcotics (marijuana to meth while all scrips prescribed to a fellow protester are obviously allowed) and liquor (all forms) use are banned and will get someone expelled and turned over to law enforcement. Come as you are! Remember, there is no member of the 1% that is on this website which means we are all The 99%!

Look at who is putting out the poll and odds are it's got a direct connection to Wall Street. This is who is creating the division.

Originally posted by Aim64C

What comprises the vast majority of our budget in today's world? Paying social security, welfare, medicare, and medicaid checks.

Explain again how eliminating solvant programs...programs that collect equal to or greater than they pay out, and which are forecasted to do so for the next decade at the minimum...how that would effect the deficet?

If we eliminated them, would we not eliminate also the Social Security and Medicare tax? Or do we keep them on the books and hope taxpayers don't notice?

All of those programs represent 40% of the Govs annual spend...but guess what it also represents about 40% of what the gov. collects.

You know what the biggest UNPAID expense is on the books? WAR...no question about it.

reply to post by Indigo5

Explain again how eliminating solvant programs...programs that collect equal to or greater than they pay out, and which are forecasted to do so for the next decade at the minimum...how that would effect the deficet?

Medicare/Medicaid taxes do not "collect" more than they pay out. Not by a long shot. Medicare/Medicaid accounts for roughly 1/4 of the budget. Medicare/Medicaid do not account for anything approaching 1/4 of National Revenues.

Further, Social Security is a farce. There is no "Trust fund." It is not backed by any hard asset other than securities (which are, ironically enough, backed by more fiat currency). Essentially, you can think of the Social Security Trust Fund as a measure of how many dollars have been taken out of circulation by comparison to how many have been printed to support the program. It is only a matter of a few years before the program begins spending more money than it collects - at which point it begins contributing to inflation rates.

Healthcare spending by the National government are also expected to double by the year 2020. If you think 3% inflation is killer - wait until you see the 5-8% that will be the annual average by 2020. The budget estimates try to make it all look nice and pretty - like we are going to be reducing spending or miraculously increasing revenues - but that is not how it is really going to work. Spending is only going to increase and the revenues are going to continue to drop despite the taxes that are levied against the shortage.

If we eliminated them, would we not eliminate also the Social Security and Medicare tax? Or do we keep them on the books and hope taxpayers don't notice?

You get rid of them both.

All of those programs represent 40% of the Govs annual spend...but guess what it also represents about 40% of what the gov. collects.

Nope. Not even close. Try again.

www.nytimes.com...

articles.businessinsider.com...

www.hoover.org...

mises.org...

You know what the biggest UNPAID expense is on the books? WAR...no question about it.

You're full of fecal matter.

www.cbpp.org...

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion,

Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $705 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.

Read it: 55% of the budget is purely writing paychecks to people.

The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which totaled $170 billion in 2010.

About 1/3 of the Military budget goes toward "war." - or less than 10% of our national budget.

Add in that 7% of the budget goes toward paying retirees and veterans - and 62% of the budget represents nothing but paychecks written to cover an individual's expenses.

Figure it out - that means only 18% of the budget is left - 6% going toward interest payments ... so we are left with 12% of the budget to actually work with.

That means only 35% of the budget is being spent in a constitutional manner (the military is provided for in the Constitution) - or about 1/3.

Originally posted by Aim64C

All of those programs represent 40% of the Govs annual spend...but guess what it also represents about 40% of what the gov. collects.

Nope. Not even close. Try again.

www.nytimes.com...

articles.businessinsider.com...

www.hoover.org...

mises.org...

You know what the biggest UNPAID expense is on the books? WAR...no question about it.

You're full of fecal matter.

www.cbpp.org...

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion,

Again you are talking about programs that are PAID FOR.


Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit

While Social Security payouts did exceed revenues for the first time last year, the Social Security Trust Fund presently enjoys a surplus of $2.6 trillion and is expected to remain solvent in its current form until 2037, according to its trustees report.

www.rawstory.com...

Daily Kos: SOCIAL SECURITY LIE: It Does NOT Affect the Deficit
www.dailykos.com...:-It-Does-NOT-Affect-the-Deficit



Is there where you deny that SS is running a surplus??

And maybe you can tell me again...looking at BOTH spending aAND earmarked income for Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare..what the cost is to the federal budget?
en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)

reply to post by Indigo5



Exactly as SS is financed by income coming in today.

Originally posted by UnrelentingLurker
i think they are both frustrated at the same thing.

one group seems to have a bit sharper understanding as to what caused that frustration, but hopefully each group will be able to put there heads together and come out united in the end.

its a fragile divide and conquer attempt that can easily backfire if done right.

Yes yes. One group still has faith and the other does not! LOL

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
Occupy Wall Street already more popular in its early stages than the Tea Party ever was, and the polls prove it!
A recent time magazine poll:

www.businessinsider.com...

(Link to the poll in the article)

A recent Time magazine poll shows 54% of americans polled rated the Occupy Wall Street protests highly, with 25% saying they are very favorable to them.

The Tea Party support was 27% found them to be favorable, while 33% polled were unfavored, 24% of which said they were highly unfavored.

Even at the peak of the Tea Party there was only a 41% support for the movement. With Occupy Wall still in its early stages, its showing signs to far surpass those of the Tea Party supporters.

The Tea Party were never supported by state run media.....thats why.

reply to post by Logarock


That was then but they are now firmly in bed with Fox.

Besides, as a member of "Occupy Jersey City - Journal Square" who attends GA's and someone who hangs out and makes sure everything is good, lend a hand but cannot occupy due to my mom's health issues who requires 24/7 care and who has been to Zuccotti Park once thus far. (It's $2 one way so that's restrictive) what I say is truth as we are not associated nor in competition with The Tea Party but offer a hand of acceptance to all Tea Party people as most of you are The 99%. In a Fox poll about a week or so back conducted a poll asking "Do you support #OWS?" and out of nearly 225,000 participants nearly 175,000 voted in favour. This is a real eye opener for the right so that everyone can gain the knowledge of how we are all being hoodwinked by Wall Street, Corporate greed-personhood-tax breaks-subsidies-deregulation-devaluation-destruction-military industrial complex-Monastato-Chemtrails-9/11-Bilderberg-CFR/Trilateral-depopulation and whatever else not listed currently as well as whatever they dream up of tomorrow! The Global Awakening has begun and it will not be stopped nor shut down. Millions by the day are becoming enlightened.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by mutatismutandis

 

More than half of this country is stupid and uneducated. Occupy Wall Street has clearly made their political ties known by this point - they are the extreme left and they are doing well to hide that fact to the common man.

I wonder how many people would be in support if they knew how many Communists and Anarchist were a part of the Occupy movement, and once educated, how gone their free system would be if their ideas came to pass.

Your numbers, by the way, are cleverly made to look like support for the Tea Party was dimmed because you didn't use the same statistics as you did with Occupy Wall Street. Allow me to correct that for you.

Tea Party Favorable: 27%
Occupy Favorable: 25%

Tea party wins in favorability.

Tea Party Unfavored: 33%
Occupy Unfavored: Unknown

No way to determine winner.

Tea Party Highly Unfavored: 24%
Occupy Highly Unfavored: Unknown

No way to determine winner.

Tea Party Total Unfavored: 57%
Occupy Total Unfavored: 46%

Occupy wins in total unfavored, but not by much.




Do note also that there is a margin of error for all polls, quite simply because 100-1000 people do not speak for the majority. Therefore, your assumption that the Occupy movements have more support than the Tea Party is erroneous and unfounded based on these very close number.

you Revolution ??? you mood = contemplating ...
who are you to say it's all ultraleft ???
contemplating revolution = contradiction !
revolution = acting = fighting = engagement !!
you talk and talk, but when will you understand what it's all about !? peace anyway and have much lol in this hard times of financial disasters !! ( try to find the real gangsters of this banking game ok ? it's NOT the people ok ?? bizzss ).

Originally posted by projectvxn
Thank god I don't care about popularity.

I care about principle.

principle ????????? hahahahaha wouhaha principle of the $$$$$$$$ ???

you glorious defender of the system ! you good boy ! you nice and clever ! all the others are stupid of course and if they are poor they are 150 % stupid of course !! you have nice children but you do not care about their futur ... you do not care about BP oil spill ( oh no, far from your home isn't it ? ) you do not care about their food because you prefer GMO frankensteinfood and frankencorn and other sheeeet ok ? you real american with big big guns, but who cannot defend himself against corporations and banks because too slave to know ...
sorry man, but your attitude is making me sick you know ... have a good dream about our/your futur and may your american God ( the special one - the neo-capitalist one hahahaha ) bless you with all his love ! you the choosen USA by God to be the police of the world, the macho of the Universe !!! = very big big sarcasm ok ? sickening vomiting übermensch mentality .......................

you glorious defender of the system ! you good boy ! you nice and clever ! all the others are stupid of course and if they are poor they are 150 % stupid of course !! you have nice children but you do not care about their futur ... you do not care about BP oil spill ( oh no, far from your home isn't it ? ) you do not care about their food because you prefer GMO frankensteinfood and frankencorn and other sheeeet ok ? you real american with big big guns, but who cannot defend himself against corporations and banks because too slave to know ...
sorry man, but your attitude is making me sick you know ... have a good dream about our/your futur and may your american God ( the special one - the neo-capitalist one hahahaha ) bless you with all his love ! you the choosen USA by God to be the police of the world, the macho of the Universe !!! = very big big sarcasm ok ? sickening vomiting übermensch mentality .......................
edit on 18-10-2011 by Sunlionspirit because: (no reason given)

understood or not ?

reply to post by Indigo5

Again you are talking about programs that are PAID FOR.

You are simply not comprehending math, right now.

Social Security is skipping in and out of deficit spending. By 2016 it will be insolvent and will never again recover.

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit

This is like saying the health insurance deducted from your pay check is not affecting your ability to pay your electric bill. It simply doesn't check with reality.

And maybe you can tell me again...looking at BOTH spending aAND earmarked income for Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare..what the cost is to the federal budget?

Perhaps you can tell me how it is we are running a 1.6 Trillion dollar deficit, if Medicare and Social Security are both solvent programs.

In 2010, we ran a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Let's add up the spending:

Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $705 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion,

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion.

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion,

Interest on the national debt: . . . In 2010, these interest payments claimed $196 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.

About 18% of the budget is spent on "other" (we'll round it up) - no specific figures are given - but we can presume that it will be about 600 billion.

Let's add up all non-"solvent" funds:

Military: 705 Billion
Safety Net: 496 Billion
Interest: 196 Billion
Other: 600 Billion.

Total: 1.997 Trillion - or 1997 billion. We'll round to 2 Trillion.

Let's presume, for a moment, that Social Security and Medicare are completely, 100% solvent. You are expecting me to believe that all of our income taxes only account for 600 billion dollars? (budget deficit of 1.4 Trillion, remember).



So... Medicare accounts for, essentially, all of our individual income tax?

Except... our employers match that 1:1 - so ... at most we're looking at 400 billion collected for social security with payouts in the range of 790 billion (or 740 billion... the numbers are all over the god damned place - each source likes to shift things around from category to category).

The numbers disagree with your claim.

Originally posted by squidboy
reply to post by mutatismutandis

 

When will people understand that the Tea Party Vs the Occupy/99 Movement is nothing more then an attempt by MSM and TPB to separate us even further.

We are are all pissed. We are all becoming aware that the system is broken. Yet, we are too naive to realize that the groups that are pissed are being culled into herds by those in Power? The right hi jacked the Tea Party, and the Left is trying to Hi Jack the 99 movement, and slowly it is working.

It's incredibly sad.

I support the call for action for Protest during said times, but to try and split the masses is just another attempt to Control us and make us just continue to fight each other, while the Power structure just sits, laughs, and grows stronger...

It's funny watching the competing medias (conservative and liberal) try to paint their group with a kinder brush.

The Tea Party (the original one anyway) and the OWS movement have very similar goals.

And like the Tea Party, the OWS movement is losing control to the media barrons.

I hope they get organized and adopt a leadership structure, if they don't they will suffer the fate of the Tea Party and the organization will become a DNC mouthpiece.

Originally posted by Aim64C
By 2016 it will be insolvent and will never again recover.

Let's skip to the bottom line...you just acknowledged that Social Security is presently solvent....so how is it adding to the deficet right now? Even if during the worst financial crisis in almost a century, the fund runs a brief deficet, it has surplus right now.

When it it will fail depends on a lot of different and debatable factors. But sticking to what we KNOW...it is not losing money now, it has a surplus.

By your own admission SS is NOT CONTRIBUTING to the DEFICET NOW!! You are now arguing about the future.

A long way off from your initial position that it was the largest expense in the budget...glad that you now understand it is a "FUNDED EXPENSE".

Claiming it is a deficet driver ..RIGHT NOW... is like a friend giving you money to buy a case a of beer, you go and buy the case of beer and deliver it to him, and then you complain about the money you spent??? Claiming it adds to your debt???

And eliminating Social Security...means no longer either collecting or spending those funds...budget neutral.

What it DOES DO is give investment banks the opportunity of the century to get thier hands on those Trillions in retirement funds!!! Happy, Greedy Days are here again!!! Let's gamble!! Hey...it's not our money! That whole financial market collapse thing was just some bad luck..

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Aim64C
By 2016 it will be insolvent and will never again recover.

Let's skip to the bottom line...you just acknowledged that Social Security is presently solvent....so how is it adding to the deficet right now? Even if during the worst financial crisis in almost a century, the fund runs a brief deficet, it has surplus right now.

When it it will fail depends on a lot of different and debatable factors. But sticking to what we KNOW...it is not losing money now, it has a surplus.

By your own admission SS is NOT CONTRIBUTING to the DEFICET NOW!! You are now arguing about the future.

A long way off from your initial position that it was the largest expense in the budget...glad that you now understand it is a "FUNDED EXPENSE".

Claiming it is a deficet driver ..RIGHT NOW... is like a friend giving you money to buy a case a of beer, you go and buy the case of beer and deliver it to him, and then you complain about the money you spent??? Claiming it adds to your debt???

And eliminating Social Security...means no longer either collecting or spending those funds...budget neutral.

What it DOES DO is give investment banks the opportunity of the century to get thier hands on those Trillions in retirement funds!!! Happy, Greedy Days are here again!!! Let's gamble!! Hey...it's not our money! That whole financial market collapse thing was just some bad luck..

If there is a surplus why did Obama say that checks couldn't go out due to lack of funds.

There may be a room full of congressional IOU's, but the money is long gone.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

If there is a surplus why did Obama say that checks couldn't go out due to lack of funds.

There may be a room full of congressional IOU's, but the money is long gone.

Now you get it.

The IOUs are in the form of US treasury notes. Debatably the safest form on investment on earth.

This is where it gets all "symantics".

The US Gov. takes SS cash deposits and issues a treasury note. They then spend that money, and in that form "invest the SS Fund" or "borrow from" or "Raid" social security depending on how you feel about it.

When the government was going to default on it's "debts" that included Treasury notes.And thus would have put SS at risk of not getting paid back what the Gov borrowed from it....along with China and other holders of US debt.

That threat is what got the US Government downgraded.

Ending Social Security is an easy way for the Government to not have to honor it's debts.

We can't stiff China, but we can stiff our own citizens! Free money!

The GOP would like to selectively default on the Govs debt to Social Security...while maintaining at all costs the tax breaks for the wealthy of course.

While at the same time creating an unprecidented boon for investment firms and bankers who have had a hard time since the public lost a good amount of faith in them the last time they lost our nations retirement funds, just a couple of years ago. Now they are the only game in town! And yes..siree...they won't be investing in boring old treasury bonds, they have a new fangled "Complex Financial Mechanism" that you are too dimwitted to understand...just give us your money, let us do the "thinking". We will explain it to you later.

I say...just because SS is one of the few programs that is NOT currently losing MONEY is no reason to raid it and ef over the Americans who have contributed to it.

reply to post by Indigo5

By your own admission SS is NOT CONTRIBUTING to the DEFICET NOW!! You are now arguing about the future.

Again - this is like saying your health insurance through your employer is not contributing to your bills.

Total outlays exceed total revenues.

A long way off from your initial position that it was the largest expense in the budget...glad that you now understand it is a "FUNDED EXPENSE".

No, it really isn't. The Federal Government is still liable for the outlays regardless of the revenues. The special tax enacted to fund the system is currently generating revenues that exceed the outlays for that program - but that does not change what is.

Claiming it is a deficet driver ..RIGHT NOW... is like a friend giving you money to buy a case a of beer, you go and buy the case of beer and deliver it to him, and then you complain about the money you spent??? Claiming it adds to your debt???

A horribly lacking analogy. The Federal Government sells the securities from the SS fund to support other programs. It is, effectively, just another income tax with different dynamics as any revenues are ultimately part of the general fund.

Likewise, the expense is shared whether the tax is appropriate or not.

All government spending must be compensated by taxation. That taxation comes at the expense of the citizens. Any and all outlays (expenses), thus, contribute to the deficit. If we were not paying social security taxes, we could pay higher sales or income taxes without changing total revenues - which would go toward different things - or toward shrinking the deficit.

Ending Social Security is an easy way for the Government to not have to honor it's debts.

And, here, we've come full circle.

You were arguing that Social Security was funded... and are now arguing that it is a financial liability to the government - which must be paid by active workers.

It's a flawed concept - the idea that I am getting "my money" is simply not accurate. My social security dollars are going to retired individuals. "My social security dollars" would come from my children and grandchildren as they work. The system was -never- intended to operate long-term, and will never practically function as a 'fund.' It requires continued taxation to work

www.forbes.com...

Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

And here’s the real irony: Anytime someone has proposed personal Social Security retirement accounts as a way to ensure that people have real assets in their own account without bankrupting the government or future generations, defenders of the status quo would pounce, calling such a reform, in Al Gore’s words, a “risky scheme.” They have vociferously claimed that those trust fund assets are real and that only by having the government manage and control the accounts would seniors be guaranteed to get their retirement checks.

Yes, the accounts likely would have declined when the stock market went down, though not if the reform were structured like three Texas counties did 30 years ago (see here). But in case you haven’t noticed, Social Security revenues also declined during the economic downturn—because fewer people were working—so that the government is paying out more in benefits than it is taking in, and hence needing additional federal revenues, a fact admitted by Lew.

So... "Yeah... but, not really."

Of course - this is completely ignoring the 732 billion dollars in Medicare/Medicaid spending and 496 billion in "Income Security Nets."