Occupy Wall Street

Romney was in front of a small audience and was taped saying how he understood the movement. Sad because 1) he is removed from that movement as he possibly could be. And 2) the movement is mostly college kids who know nothing about the real world and career left wing protesters. Originally Posted by 30 is the new 20

the movement is NOT mostly college kids, actually...its a very many people who are either out of work, out of a home because of the shady lending practices such as applying mortgage payments to a "suspense fund" instead of your mortgage, which CHASE MANHATTAN BANK HAS GOTTEN AWAY WITH to over 600,000 homes, in my state ALONE in the past YEAR, using out of jurisdiction courts, even then manipulating the protections afforded to one by a bankruptcy, by getting the bankruptcy "stayed" in a different court across the country by one of their network of attorneys, somewhere it would have no jurisdiction whatsoever, and totally unbeknownst to the mortgagee, so that the first time they make that bankruptcy settlement payment, and Chase applies it to the "suspense fund" (i.e-corporate bonus plan fund) they can have you out of your home, despite you having put every single other thing you owned into that bankruptcy with it as well, even seasonal property you had paid off twenty yrs ago, well that is all theirs now, thank you. Oh, and try and LOCATE an attorney willing to take them on. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! NOT IN NY STATE, thats for sure! My almost senior citizen parents, who both still work, full time, and had never made a late payment, ever, are still struggling to stay in a home that had the mortgage not got sold to Chase, would have been paid off before Id ever even graduated! This same institution was kind enough to send me a credit card at 17, which, at 17, who is actually responsible enough to really deal well with this? They even got in trouble for targeting college kids, but never when they sent them out to my graduating class, who were not even all of age at the time! Id spent the first few yrs of my adult life feeling like a loser for a mistake Id made as a teenager! When Id called them, their answer was that my parents should have supervised me better, and they lumped it on to their credit file AS WELL! THEY DID NOT REMOVE IT FROM MINE THOUGH! .....so basically, this movement is about keeping a presence down there, and saying to these millionaire CEO's who arrive via car service everyday, "look at us" we are here. WE COUNT! WITHOUT US YOU WOULDNT HAVE JACKSHIT! the numbers (us) count for something. That 2% controlling 98% of all the wealth, they know it is absurd, they know they are wrong, and it is high time that their tree is shook!
In regards to the movement being disorganized, couldnt be further from the truth. Have you gone through their webpage? Gone to any of their "occupy" rallies in YOUR OWN hometown? because they are EVERYWHERE NOW! not just NYC! so I would NOT call them disorganized, nor misplaced. It would be ignorant to say that without knowledge or even having tried to get involved or understand. Their gripe is the exact same as 96% of everyday Americans'! go to www.occupywallstreet.com and you will see what I mean! They do NOT WANT A FIGUREHEAD OR MAIN LEADER, it goes against the principles they started upon!!! Just check them out for yourselves once before you judge is all I am saying, you may feel a strong sense of unity with these folks, most of whom, I sure did!!!

Who do you think paid that 2% interest rate?

You could make it 10% it you want. It is just an accounting move that robs Peter to pay Paul.

What you are to dense to understand is that had the government paid 10% SS would really look good but the budget defuicit would be even larger.

Taking the surplus from SS just made it where the deficit did not look so bad to those that did not look very close. The majority of the deficit is made up from Defense spending. They have been able to keep taxes low by taking this surplus from SS and paying this low rate.

What you do not understand is that while SS needs tweaking, the whole process needs a redo.

We need to understand just how much we pay for Defense and either pay it or do something different. This recession combined with the SS surplus coming to an end is just making folks look at it sooner than they would have liked.

The three biggest items that we spend on are Defense, SS & MC. SS and MC have run surpluses for decades. Guess where that leaves Defense?

I am always shocked that bright people can not seem to understand the simple math problem that we have. Originally Posted by WTF

Thank you for pointing that out, I always feel like hitting my head on a hard object when I hear people discussing "what a drain MC and SS" are on the economy, but will hoot and holler whenever there is an armed forces ANYTHING on TV, in a parade, etc., nauseating! Glad someone else knows basic math still besides myself!

Nobody said 'alone'.

It is the biggest item besides SS &MC by far.

SS & MC ran a surplus for decades.

So the biggest item other than those two would appear to any reasonable person who can sift through the double dealing accounting tricks would know that Defense is busting the budget. Medical spending is fast catching up but tell the old fuc'ers who did not fund it near enough that they need to make cuts to their end of life care and watch them scream bloody murder.

You wanna know the real cost of military spending , go here.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Originally Posted by WTF

See your defense spending and raise you the means tested welfare outlays . . . Oops! Obama done done that! State and federal outlays for welfare far out weigh federal spending on defense.

Obama’s Welfare Spendathon Versus the Cost of the Iraq War
Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $695 billion in that year.
While campaigning for the presidency, Obama lamented that “the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per month.” Applying the same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare cost each household $638 per month in 2010.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Upload..._Testimony.pdf


And talk about an expensive, losing war (2009 report):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Obama-to-Spend-103-Trillion-on-Welfare-Uncovering-the-Full-Cost-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor?query=Obama+to+Spend+$10. 3+Trillion+on+Welfare:+Uncover ing+the+Full+Cost+of+Means-Tested+Welfare+or+Aid+to+the+P oor

What a lying sac of shit tose stats are. Take for instance 'Interest on Debt'. That should mostly moved to Defense spending as SS & MC have run a surplus all these decades.

And you sly fuckers like to combine state spending when it suits your need. State spending on education is done mostly at a local level, as well it should be. You never seem to mention state taxes when bitching about 47% of Americans not paying any!

I will not argue the war on welfare is a load of crap. But on the other hand welfare for ag business and all other business is a load of crap. Welfare in general is going aganist basic human nature. Humans expect people to work for something, not stick their hand out.

Be honest I B with your stats, you are not throwing them around to some dumb fuc who does not know better.

The problem we are having is deficit spending and the majority of that is coming from the Defense department. If the super 6 do not reform tax's , your precious Defense spending is going to take a huge hit. No other way around it. We do not have the money and the old greedy fucs will not take a hit to their SS payments!

You can take dat shit to da bank.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Anybody that wants to actually better understand how the government spends our money should go to the link provided above.


If you have any questions on it I B , feel free to ask and I will do my best to educate you on realpolitiks


The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20% of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?
Different groups have different purposes in how they present the budget figures. WRL’s goal has been to show the percentage of money that goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying — or not paying — their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years.



There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing the U.S. budget:

• discretionary spending vs. total spending
• budget authority vs. outlays
• function vs. agency/department
• federal funds vs. unified budget
• time period

Discretionary Spending. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) has used "discretionary" spending — budget items that Congress is allowed to tinker with — which excludes so-called "mandatory" spending items (such as interest on the national debt and retirement pay). WRL does not make such distinctions and lumps them together.
Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.
How much of the debt is considered “military” varies from group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently, FCNL reports that 43% of the FY2007 budget is military (29% current military and 14% past military). WRL's figures are 54% of the FY2009 budget (36% current — which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars — and 18% past).
Outlays vs. Budget Authority. WRL uses "outlays" rather than "budget authority," which is often preferred by the government, news media, and groups such as CDI. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over a period of several future years. Consequently, CDI reported $421 billion in FY2005 budget authority for the military and $2,200 billion "over the next five years." While WRL reports outlays of $803 billion, plus an anticipated $162 billion in supplemental spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan wars, plus $484 billion in past military spending — totaling $1,449 billion — just for FY2009.
Function vs. Agency/Department. Not all military spending is done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 70% of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in military spending, while other groups do not.
Federal Funds vs. Unified Budget. WRL uses "federal funds" rather than the "unified budget" figures that the government prefers. Federal funds exclude trust fund money (e.g., social security), which is raised separately (e.g., the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular.

What a lying sac of shit tose stats are. . .

Be honest I B with your stats, you are not throwing them around to some dumb fuc who does not know better. Originally Posted by WTF

No, those numbers are fine. They're probably much more accurate than those proffered by a bunch of biased draft dodging peaceniks and other defectors.

You can say what you want about the interest on debt. The accruing interest could just as easily be assigned to welfare costs as to defense costs.

No, those numbers are fine. They're probably much more accurate than those proffered by a bunch of biased draft dodging peaceniks and other defectors. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Draft dodging peaceniks....Damn, I didn't know we still had a draft. I musta dodged it and didn't even know!

Look , I would have no problem reinstating the draft, that way you would have a more balanced military. One not so full of right leaning folks that think nothing of spending money on their pet project (military) and nothing on other blue blooded Americans. They have no trouble with GI bill type spending, yet think the kids wanting an education that did not join the vast military industrial complex as free loaders. We are all free loaders if we do not pay our bills. Right now we are not paying our bills.

Why is that so hard to see?

You can say what you want about the interest on debt. The accruing interest could just as easily be assigned to welfare costs as to defense costs. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It could be assigned to both but it sure the fuc can not be assigned to SS or MC! The reason people are say those are broke is because they are now taking their accured money instead of having a surplus for both welfare and defense to steal from.


You will get no argument from me that we have lost the war on poverty and just enslave a group of folks to that circular way of thinking. But Defense spending is in part welfare for the rich.

btw....at least they are honest in their numbers. They realize that it is difficult to put an exact number on but you put no number on it. That is dishonest. You have to put a cost on war debt. If I buy a car, the interest payment is part of the cas's cost. You act as if the interest payment is free! Futhermore , the interest payment you have paid the SS trust fund is miniscule. As LexusLover pointed out it is nothing compared to what would have been paid. 2% , Come on mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!


Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.
How much of the debt is considered “military” varies from group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently, FCNL reports that 43% of the FY2007 budget is military (29% current military and 14% past military). WRL's figures are 54% of the FY2009 budget (36% current — which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars — and 18% past).

Draft dodging peaceniks....Damn, I didn't know we still had a draft. I musta dodged it and didn't even know! Originally Posted by WTF

WTF---You need to spell it out to IB when you are being facetious. Otherwise, he will get his 'frilly' panties in a wad!

Draft dodging peaceniks....Damn, I didn't know we still had a draft. I musta dodged it and didn't even know! Originally Posted by WTF

Correct. There is no longer a draft, but check up on some of the members of your movement. Furthermore, there are among their ranks defectors who were quite willing to accept Uncle Sam's pay checks until they were called upon to fight. Suddenly, they developed "morale issues" with serving their country in uniform.

I didn't know we still had a draft. I musta dodged it and didn't even know! Originally Posted by WTF

You did if you didn't register. You did register, didn't you?

You did if you didn't register. You did register, didn't you? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WDF...you need to check out of the "YMCA" and report to duty.
There's some positions that need to be filled "In the Navy".

You are assuming that he is a "Macho Man."

Yes he is a "Macho Man"



And a very friendly follow.

You did if you didn't register. You did register, didn't you? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why the fuc would I register?

It was 1978 and we had no draft , no war and I had no good reason to join the military. Somebody has to actually work to pay the salary of folks that got hired for that job. I was one of those folks.

It is still a job isn't it? Do they expect you to work for free in the military? Now that would be a real volunteer military. I wonder how many folks like Pat Tillman would join with no perks and no pay?

Now that was a true hero....Have you seen the movie, I B? The Pat Tillman Story? Every true person that calls themself patrotic should have seen it by now....

WDF...you need to check out of the "YMCA" and report to duty.
There's some positions that need to be filled "In the Navy". Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I bet your asshole is already filled full of seamen!

Why the fuc would I register?

It was 1978 and we had no draft , no war and I had no good reason to join the military. Somebody has to actually work to pay the salary of folks that got hired for that job. I was one of those folks.

It is still a job isn't it? Do they expect you to work for free in the military? Now that would be a real volunteer military. I wonder how many folks like Pat Tillman would join with no perks and no pay?

Now that was a true hero....Have you seen the movie, I B? The Pat Tillman Story? Every true person that calls themself patrotic should have seen it by now.... Originally Posted by WTF

Then you were in violation of federal law and fit right in with the others in the War Resisters League (BTW, did you know they are an anti-nuke organization, so they'd have been against your 'Nuke bin Laden plan').

"In 1971, the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 was amended to make registration compulsory; all males had to register within a period 30 days before and 29 days after their 18th birthday [and that was in effect until March 29, 1975, when President Ford suspended registration]. However, on July 2, 1980, President Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18–26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960. . . Under current law, all male U.S. citizens are required to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In addition, foreign males between the ages of 18 and 25 living in the United States must register. . . In 1980, men who knew they were required to register and did not do so could face up to five years in jail or a fine up to $50,000 if convicted. The potential fine was later increased to $250,000." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

Haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I've heard, Tillman's willingness to sacrifice stands in stark contrast to those who were in uniform and fled to Canada, to avoid doing their duty, and who now support the War Resisters League.