sitting and linking arms is almost an international symbol of "I am resisting, but I am non-violent" which means in most places.. the cops actually ask, "will you come quietly, or will I have to carry you?"
I can only guess everyone is afraid of an "arab spring" here in the US.
Travis_K wrote: I think the cop in the video, the chancellor and the police cheif will likely all have to resign over it, but what else will happen I'm not sure.
I think the cop will have to resign. I'm not sure if that is the "right" thing or not. I really hope the chancellor does, and police chief too. I'm most concerned that they are going to use the police officers, particularly the one recorded, as scapegoats to keep their positions. Paint them as being out of control and failing to handle the situation properly.
mad_machine wrote: sitting and linking arms is almost an international symbol of "I am resisting, but I am non-violent" which means in most places.. the cops actually ask, "will you come quietly, or will I have to carry you?"
In the video, I also saw officers see if they could pull one of the less linked-in people out of the chain before using pepper spray. All the other protesters around her grabbed her and hauled her back down into the ring. Looked to me like hauling them out bodily was not going to be a good option.
Not surprisingly, there was a LOT more to the story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&sns=fb
Cliff Notes Version:
Police remove tents set up in violation of a legal code. They arrest several people who try to prevent them from doing this, and zip-cuff them.
Crowd of people surrounds the police officers and people they have zip-cuffed. Police circle up.
Protesters shout at the police that they'll let them leave when they release the people they've arrested.
Police inform the crowd that they need to move off of the path they are on so that squad cars can come in. Each person in the way is informed individually that, "If you do not move when the squad car arrives, you will be subject to force."
From here, the videos you've seen kick in: Police tell people they're going to pepper spray and arrest them if they don't move. People don't move. Cops do exactly what they said they would.
In reply to Salanis:
People are still going to ignore that part so they can complain about police brutality.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/adam-carolla-breaks-down-occupy-movement-fking-self-entitled-monsters/
well-said...
paul wrote: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/adam-carolla-breaks-down-occupy-movement-fking-self-entitled-monsters/ well-said...
Wow! That's good. I couldn't agree more.
I wish he could re-record it to clean it up a bit because there are a lot of people I would share it with but can't with the language.
SVreX wrote:paul wrote: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/adam-carolla-breaks-down-occupy-movement-fking-self-entitled-monsters/ well-said...Wow! That's good. I couldn't agree more. I wish he could re-record it to clean it up a bit because there are a lot of people I would share it with but can't with the language.
I don't fully agree. How many of the 1% or 0.5% made their money by building, creating, or organizing things? They're not all doctors and entrepreneurs. A lot of them are the people who are made their money through banking and stocks. The idea that everyone who is wealthy got that way through hard work, or that wealthy people create jobs, seems to be a fallacy.
Then there are CEO's like the one at American Airlines. People who screw up a company that the workers are sacrificing for, and get a huge bonus for doing so.
I do think most of the OWS folks are being idiots about most things, but I think there are some important issues getting raised. I am not ready to vilify either side.
paul wrote: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/adam-carolla-breaks-down-occupy-movement-fking-self-entitled-monsters/ well-said...
Well said indeed. I wish I could find an unedited version so I don't have to listen to the beeps. 
Salanis wrote: I don't fully agree. How many of the 1% or 0.5% made their money by building, creating, or organizing things? They're not all doctors and entrepreneurs. A lot of them are the people who are made their money through banking and stocks. The idea that everyone who is wealthy got that way through hard work, or that wealthy people create jobs, seems to be a fallacy.
I think you missed his point. When he said "building" and "creating" something, he was INCLUDING building a business.
Why is it wrong to "build" a business based on banking and stocks?
And BTW, it IS hard work to build a business, even one that is based in finance. Your post is exhibiting EXACTLY the kind of envy he was referring to.
If my local banker failed to build his business, a lot of homeowners would not have gotten loans, and a LOT of local businesses would not have been able to grow or hire people.
If making money on stocks were illegitimate, then a LOT of insurance companies would not have the assets to pay claims, a LOT of pension plans would be bankrupt. etc. etc.
SVreX wrote: Why is it wrong to "build" a business based on banking and stocks?
I am referring to people like derivatives traders, and sub-prime loan bankers. There are people who build legitimate banking businesses. I have no problem with those people. Building a fortune is not the same thing as building a business.
I think there are quite a few people who got rich by doing things that screwed up our economy and lead directly to the recession we're in and the employment issues we're having. I think not enough people/organizations have been held accountable for what they have done. It does piss me off that people can get rewarded for berkeleying up the economy, but we should
Is every rich person bad? Hardly. Is every rich person good? No. Seems like the issue is getting polarized, and that the truth lies somewhere between "These are a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing, entitled kids," and "These evil corporate fat cats are stealing all the money and getting away with it."
First off- that's not what you said. You referred to the 1% or the .5% Carolla reffered to. That would be the top earners who pay 50% of the taxes, not the "evil derivatives traders". You are changing the focus.
Secondly, what makes them evil for utilizing the system within the confines of the law? How about blaming the politicians who wrote the laws allowing the derivative trading? No, we'll let them vote a berkeleying RAISE for themselves!
There is NOTHING evil about someone building their business in a legally permissible manner.
We need more of it, and less whining at people who have succeeded by people who were too lazy to do so themselves.
Do you claim all of the tax deductions you are legitimately entitled to? Well then stop berkeleying up the system and pay the entire amount!
Your premise that legitimate businesses should be punished for succeeding at a formula that existed for EVERYONE to participate in is absurd and wrong.
THAT'S his point.
Being legal doesn't make something right. It is legal for those politicians to vote themselves raises.
We have a situation that allowed people to do stupid things that were not sustainable. When things fell through, those people got bonuses and bailouts, while the people whose money they wasted suffer. I'm not saying punish businesses for being successful. I'm saying hold businesses and their leaders accountable for the messes they create.
I think the example of the American Airlines CEO taking a $500mil bonus and then the company declaring bankruptcy is an example of what is wrong.
I'm also saying that the OWS people aren't focusing on the real issues. Many probably do feel a sense of entitlement. Seems though, the worst that can be said of most people (this goes back to the original Cracked article) is, "How dare you believe everything you've been told by everyone your entire life."
I don't feel bad for people who don't have a job because they don't put in the work to finding one, or who won't take something because it's "below" them.
I also don't feel bad for people have to pay more taxes because they earn more money. If a group earns a bit under 50% of the income in this country, it's not particularly a hardship if they pay a bit over 50% of the taxes.
If that were true I might be inclined to listen, but I doubt it is.
You are suggesting that 1% of the population makes 50% of the income of the country? I call BS.
The statistic is that 1% of the taxpayers pay 50% of the taxes, not that their income equals 50% of the income of the entire country. That's a distortion.
Checked. It's not true.
The 1% wealthiest Americans take home 24% of the income of the nation.
That's a HUGE percentage and really out of balance, but by the logic you are applying it is still HALF of what you claim.
So, according to your logic, the top 1% of the population who are currently paying 50% of the taxes should get a TAX CUT to 24%, right?
Like I said, I call BS.
Depends what taxes we're talking. I presume we're talking about Federal Income Tax. By that, the top ~5% pays 50% according to this:
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
That top 1% pays about 36%. Granted, that's a lot, but how much of the income do they earn? I'm not finding too much info on that.
I know XKCD is hardly an authoritative source, but this graphic is interesting:
http://xkcd.com/980/
In the center they have broken down the population into 5 equal income chunks. According to this, the top 1.3% of the country makes about 20% of income. So... they pay 36% of Federal Income tax, and probably about 30% of combined Federal and State income taxes.
Yes, the wealthiest pay a lot more, but they make a lot more. If you just say "ZOMFG 1% of the population pays 1/3 of the taxes!" that's only a part of the story and ignores that they make nearly 1/3 of the income, and have the majority of the wealth.
Salanis wrote: Being legal doesn't make something right.
Being legal DOES make something right in court.
Are you interjecting ethics?
Well, MY ethical perspective (and Carollas) is that it is WRONG to expect entitlements for something you have not earned. Get to work.
You are suggesting that legally operating businesses should be penalized (by the laws) because you THINK they shouldn't earn as much as they do.
Hogwash.
So, you've found the top 1% earns ~24% of the income, and I've found they pay ~36% of the Federal Income taxes. Throw in State Income taxes, and they probably pay about 30%. Throw in sales taxes, and they're probably not paying much more than their ~24%.
It is certainly easier for them to shoulder a little extra tax burden.
I'm saying that I don't feel bad for the poor put-upon rich people who shoulder a tax burden that is not as unfair as quick statistics make it sound.
Salanis wrote: That top 1% pays about 36%. Granted, that's a lot, but how much of the income do they earn? I'm not finding too much info on that.
You are not finding it because you are not reading what I am giving you. It's in the NY Times article I posted.
Your numbers and your argument are completely irrelevant without the correlating income earnings. With them, your assertions are proven to be false.
They pay MUCH more than their fair share. Double, as a percentage of the national income they earn.
SVreX wrote: You are suggesting that legally operating businesses should be penalized (by the laws) because you THINK they shouldn't earn as much as they do.
No. I'm saying that if they screw things up enough to need to get government bail-outs to stay afloat, there need to be some repercussions for the people who screwed things up.
I'm also saying that if the laws allow people to gamble with money that is not their's and who suffer no consequences for screwing up, perhaps we should re-evaluate these laws that allow people to get away with things like that.
Salanis wrote: So, you've found the top 1% earns ~24% of the income, and I've found they pay ~36% of the Federal Income taxes. Throw in State Income taxes, and they probably pay about 30%. Throw in sales taxes, and they're probably not paying much more than their ~24%. It is certainly easier for them to shoulder a little extra tax burden. I'm saying that I don't feel bad for the poor put-upon rich people who shoulder a tax burden that is not as unfair as quick statistics make it sound.
First you say their tax percentage should match their income percentage, then when you find out it already does you say it is easier for them to shoulder a little extra?
Your ever moving targets are thoroughly frustrating.
You said you disagree with Carolla because the wealthy earn 50% of the income so it's OK for them to pay 50% of the taxes. That's a false statement. I am simply responding to your statements, which keep changing.
So, I agree with Carolla. His statements are remaining consistent.
SVreX wrote: You are not finding it because you are not reading what I am giving you. It's in the NY Times article I posted.
You mean, the one you posted while I was writing that post?
Your numbers and your argument are completely irrelevant without the correlating income earnings. With them, your assertions are proven to be false. They pay MUCH more than their fair share. Double, as a percentage of the national income they earn.
No. They pay 50% greater Federal Income taxes than their proportion of the population. When other taxes are accounted for (State Income Tax, Sales, Property, etc.) their burden comes into pretty close to their proportion of the population.
No, it is not exactly the same proportion. But it's not as crazy out of balance as people like to say. These are also people with a lot greater capacity to pay and still live comfortably.
Salanis wrote:SVreX wrote: You are suggesting that legally operating businesses should be penalized (by the laws) because you THINK they shouldn't earn as much as they do.No. I'm saying that if they screw things up enough to need to get government bail-outs to stay afloat, there need to be some repercussions for the people who screwed things up. I'm also saying that if the laws allow people to gamble with money that is not their's and who suffer no consequences for screwing up, perhaps we should re-evaluate these laws that allow people to get away with things like that.
I agree. Let's lock up the politicians who screwed things up.
The loosening of the lending practices was directly connected to the (then) administration's desire to increase homeownership among a large percentage of people who could not afford it. The derivatives developed as a way to spread the risk associated with these lending practices. It was an enormous scheme to grab votes by politicians, which was facilitated by businesses in accordance with the Federal lending guidelines.
Don't blame the people (businesses) who cooperated with the goals of the administration.
SVreX wrote: First you say their tax percentage should match their income percentage, then when you find out it already does you say it is easier for them to shoulder a little extra? Your ever moving targets are thoroughly frustrating. You said you disagree with Carolla because the wealthy earn 50% of the income so it's OK for them to pay 50% of the taxes. That's a false statement. I am simply responding to your statements, which keep changing. So, I agree with Carolla. His statements are remaining consistent.
My statements aren't really changing too much. You're reading them differently. Maybe they're changing a little bit as people present arguments that cause me to adjust my position. They still aren't changing as much as you're accusing me of.
I never said we need to make the tax rate fair and equal across everyone. I never said the rich should pay a tax rate equal to their proportion of the population. I said the discrepancy between income and total taxes paid are not as great as people like to make them out to be.
I disagree with Carolla because I don't think the OWS are completely in the wrong. Not all of the wealthiest people deserve to be looked up to. Many do. Some don't. They certainly don't all deserve to be vilified. The OWS people are not entirely right or entirely wrong either. Some are idiots who I do not pity. Some are people in a really unfortunate situation that was not of their making. Some of the points they are raising have merit.
I think that a lot of this recession is due to the greed and unscrupulous business practices of a number of organizations and the people who ran them. These organizations screwed up and got a bunch of money for screwing things up for the rest of us. Those people do not deserve to be looked up to. They should be held accountable for their actions. If it turns out their actions were entirely legal, we should probably reevaluate our laws to prevent people from doing such phenomenally stupid things, things that lead to an economic collapse, again.
You'll need to log in to post.
