Occupy Pittsburgh to host permitted event (Progress, Wall: transfer, buyers, taxi)

[gg]

Originally Posted by ossewa

The 500 person est. is from the police and was probably made at the rally start point at St. Benedict. I think a lot of people joined at various points along the way. I watched some Youtube videos this morning and the march looked more impressive from the outside, kind of amazing really.

The snare drummer was awesome, I can't help but to think what a march would be like with 10+ drummers. It gives you cold chills...Anyone who knows some lefty drummers should encourage them to volunteer for the next march or rally.

I was one of the many that just went to Market Square. I wanted to go earlier, but was on a bike ride and ran late due to a huge headwind that about had my riding backwards.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by mike02

I've spoken to several people who are working 2+ jobs to make ends meet. They are laughing at the stupidity and laziness of many of these protesters. Life isn't about having a free ride and most don't understand the effects of government policy and "corporatism." Protesting Wall Street will do absolutely NOTHING. I hope those CEO's get a good look at the faces outside and make sure they NEVER hire any of them.

As one of those individuals who averages 70 hours per week at two jobs I'm inclined to agree with you. It's one thing to be outraged at the direction this nation is headed on political grounds (How much did invading Iraq cost us again? Why is legalizing same-sex civil unions still an issue?); however, I know personally of some people who were protesting who were only there because they wanted to serve as Robin Hoods---spreading the wealth---because they felt like those with power and influence didn't "deserve" to have it as much as they personally did.

I know a lot of people who cry poverty and who COULD be working at two jobs, yet they aren't. JOBS are plentiful, assuming you're not incompetent or lazy. I've had JOB offers fall into my lap since moving here. Career opportunities, on the other hand, are MUCH scarcer since many Baby Boomers are working longer in their current positions to try to reinforce retirement savings lost due to the recession, which keeps their subordinates from rising up to their positions, which trickles down to much fewer entry-level opportunities for early-20-somethings, such as myself. Unlike others, though, I don't blame anyone but myself for my inability to get my foot in the door here in my field. In order to do so I'd take a job that pays comparably to one of the positions I have now, and I'd likely have to forgo my second job. Financially I'm in a bind (thanks largely to a distracted jagoff from Point Breeze inflicting $12,000 in damage to my car when she ran a red light and hit me, but I digress) where I can't afford to do that. It's not anyone's fault but my own, though, that I'm a failure. It's not the fault of the "Top 1%".

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by mike02

They realize we are BROKE. Flat out Broke. Completely bankrupt.

Nope. It is possible to have higher levels of overall taxation in a developed economy, which means we are not actually "broke", "bankrupt", or anything of the kind:



And of course capital investors would not be begging to buy long-term Treasuries at historically low real yields if they thought we were in fact "broke" or "bankrupt"



This notion we are "broke" is a construct of the Norquislings, who have been quite open about their strategy of creating an artificial budgetary crisis so that they can try to popularize what would otherwise be radically unpopular cuts in social programs. Fortunately, this strategy is failing miserably, and in fact trying to push through the end game explains why the Tea Party movement has become so unpopular.

Last point: Why don't they protest the ones in power? You know, the powerful men and women that legislate, enforce, and interpret laws and policy. This small little town called WASHINGTON, DC.

I don't understand how you can complain about "corporatism" in one paragraph and then suggest in the next paragraph people should only protest politicians.

Frankly, this is a deep incoherence in the Tea Party movement as it has evolved with the encouragement of the Norquislings and Murdochians: you can't be against "corporatism" but also advocate extreme deference to our corporate lords. Hence why the Occupy movement is an opportunity to reboot the Tea Party movement prior to its capture by the same old right wing elites.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I always thought "n'at" was a contraction for "and that".

Right, I mentioned that above. But the phrase "and that" plays the same role as "et cetera" (which translated means something like "and the rest"). The basic purpose of these phrases is to imply a list without having to write it out:

Et cetera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Denton56]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I'll assume they want corporations to take up their fair share, so it doesn't fall so hard on the squeezed middle class

What does that mean? They want corporations to pay more in taxes, decrease profits to stockholders and retirement/investment plans? That would certainly hurt retired firefighters and teachers, but ok. Would they like corporations to hire fewer people? Pay them less? That's what happens when profits go down. When businesses don't make money, they let people go. Or do you mean something else?

I agree that taxes should be reduced for the middle class, and everyone else. Let people keep the money that they make!

[BrianTH]

Profits by definition don't include expenditures on labor.

And recently, corporate profits have soared without that translating into similar increases in labor compensation:



This chart is corporate taxation as a percentage of pre-tax profits--it is at historic lows:



Trickle-down isn't working.

[UKyank]

If you're middle class & paying much income tax at all you're doing something wrong.

[BrianTH]

Another good chart (particularly the change in share part):



http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10...3_this_ti.html

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Is n'at a yinzer thing? Maybe it's only here that ive regularly been seeing it.

You'll occasionally hear Dennis Miller punctuating a statement with "n'at."

[Love2Golf09]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Another good chart (particularly the change in share part):



The Evasions of the 53 Percent: This Time It’s Personal -- Daily Intel

All of these charts can be analyzed and debated to death, but it's pointless to someone that has a moral objection to income redistribution. Also, many people, like myself, would never trust the govt to do this in a fair manner even if they were ok with it. Plus, simply taking money from the "1%" or corporations is incredibly myopic.

Even a child understands that if you raise taxes on corporations by 10%, then they will simply raise the price of their product plus lay off workers to counter that loss of income. Obama and the liberals are incredibly simple-minded when it comes to complex issues. Example: They think banks are making too much money, so Obama pushes for new regulations capping the fees they can charge. So, to make up for this loss in revenue the banks raise the fees of everyone with ridiculous monthly debit card fees. But, the bum that can't balance his check book will pay less in overdraft fees. Thanks liberals. That's progress folks. That's what a dozen ivy league educated economists come up with to get people back to work. Scary stuff.