Back to "Occupy" my small corner of the web.

A "Peaceful Protest", no one would pay attention to. A "Peaceful Protest" means using public lands or private lands (if you have the owners consent) without limiting the use of that land by the public (if public) or the owners (if private) and you shouldn't be breaking laws. Sitting in the middle of the street limits the use of that land by the public. Using bullhorns or not leaving when told to is, by it's very nature, breaking the law. The bullhorns are a sound ordinance law and the other is an illegal occupation. So you guys are breaking the law. That's not a "Peaceful Protest".

So the police are allowed to arrest you. If you resist, you broke another law. If you make it impossible for the police to do their job, you have caused it to escalate. If they see you as a threat (and there is very liberal rules on what constitutes a "threat", if they can't see your hands or are not following orders), they can use force to compel you. The police have a tendency to use "non-lethal" forms first. Pepper spray, Tear gas and Tasers are "non-lethal" I for one would rather them use that than "lethal" forms. (If you protesters don't understand, that means guns). So you have been pepper sprayed because you didn't follow the forms of a "Peaceful Protest". Sorry I have no sympathy for you because you BROKE THE LAW!

Quit whining and go home. Or you can use my tax money more effectively from jail.

Federal Taxes

Here we go...

The top 15% of wage-earners pay more in federal income taxes than the other 85%.

Corporations pay more in federal taxes than most of us will see in a lifetime.

The bottom 50% of wage-earners do not pay federal income taxes.

Now, first thing, Taxation without Representation should work both ways. If you don't pay federal income taxes, shut the hell up. You have NO horse in this race. If you are recieving Welfare or EIC, shut the hell up. You are making money already from the other 50%.

I am constantly appalled by the amount of just petty jealousy exhibited by the lazy against the workers. Really, if you don't have enough, work for it! How do you think the "rich" (still looking for a defintion) got their money. They got it by being smarter and working harder. You can't work 40 hours a week or less and expect to get rich. Usually the rich got rich by working 60 + hours a week some as high as 100 hours a week.

If you aren't willing to do that, and most people (including me) aren't willing, don't whine about those that do. It's their life. I look at it this way: I don't care what goes on in your bedroom. That is your own personal choice. Why in the hell should I care about what goes on in your wallet?

People please let's call it what it is and recognize it.

It's PETTY JEALOUSY.

Now maybe we can solve the problem.

The un-99%

One more post for today.

New term I heard that cracks me up. "The Greed of Wall Street". Oh you mean the greed of the over 100 million people who are invested in the Stock Market?

That kind of blows your 99% out of the water.

A Primer for the Politically Ignorant.

I'll probably add more later:

1. This is not a Democracy. We are not a country ruled by the Majority. We are a Constitutional Republic. We are ruled by law.

2. Republicans, for the most part, are not racists. If you look through history, the current version of the Republican party was started to end slavery. If you also look through history, you will see that the Democrats supported slavery, and fought for segregation.

3. Democrats, for the most part, do not look at us as individuals. They look at us as groups, i.e. minorities, Union members, Urban, Rural, etc...

4. 5% of wage earners in this country pay more in FEDERAL taxes than the other 95%.

5. Over 50% of wage earners in this country have a FEDERAL tax burden of 0% or lower. In other words, they get back all the taxes they pay or they get more back from the Federal Government than they pay.

6. I am not rich. I'm barely upper lower to lower middle class. So I have no reason to take the side of the "rich" (Still looking for that definition).

7. Corporations are not wage earners...

8. Corporations are taxed without proper representation, i.e. a vote.

9. Corporations supply jobs.

10. Stocks are owned by individuals. Like anyone with a 401K or a Roth IRA or any form of retirement fund.

11. The advent of subprime mortgages were from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because Bill Clinton wanted them to loan out more money.

12. The latest collapses of the stock market and the housing industries were directly caused by tax limbo we are currently in because of the President and the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to them loaning out too much money at the behest of the former President.

So, I've been studying up on the whole occupy "wherever" protests. They want fairness and and end to corporate influence on politics.

In fairness they are referring to "economic inequality". So what is the difference between "Economic Inequality" and "Jealousy"? Are you mad because people make more than you? Would you feel the same if you made that much? And the coup de grace question...Would you rather everyone live right at the poverty line so you get your fairness? I prefer "Equality" over fairness. That means that everyone has the right to make of themselves what they will. These protesters (who are predominately white, middle class people who have never wanted) have patterned their protests after the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. A revolution, mind you that was about police brutality, lack of freedom and human rights mainly. I'm sorry guys, but main street America has no problems with you protesting. You say you represent us, but I'm pretty happy with my life right now. I would be rather upset if you cause the government to intrude more in my life. Being a former Marine, I suport your right to free speech and to assemble, but I have to be truthful, you guys are more of an annoyance than a movement.

And on Corporate influence on politics...Corporations don't have a vote like citizens do, but they are taxed heavier than the citizens... Does Taxation without Representation ring a bell? And you do realize when you talk about corporations, you are actually talking about jobs, right? Industries want tax breaks so they can grow their businesses and hire more people to keep up with demand. If you really want to talk about influence on politics, what about the unions? I'm totally cool with Corporations not having any influence if we don't tax them and unions can't use their money to influence politics either. There! That's a level playing field with no hypocrisy.

Troy Davis

So, last week a convicted murderer died. Unless you have been living under a rock or don't live in the US, you've heard the outcry. He proclaimed his innocence to the end, which was good.

I am happy that I live in a country that is ruled by laws and NOT public opinion. He was found guilty. He has had numerous appeals over the past 21 YEARS. They never found enough proof to release him. It's not like they haven't been looking.

But to be fair, it's not about the fact he's a convicted murderer. It's more about opposition to the Death Penalty. And also to be fair, both right and left sides of the political spectrum are hypocrites. You have one side opposed to the Death Penalty, but in support of Abortion... Solet me get this straight, if you are an innocent, it's ok to kill you, but if you're guilty, you can live? Yeah that makes sense... On the other hand... All life is sacred, i.e. Pro-Life, except when you are a convicted murderer. So let's kill the person that killed someone else, because one person wasn't enough. This is not Babylon. Hammurabi is dead.

Now I'm not criticizing the way you think. I just want people to be consistant. I, myself, support Abortion and the Death Penalty. Unfortunately with the way the world works, you can't save everyone. It's sad and tragic, but that's reality.

Now when I hear cut $3 trillion long term deficit reduction over the next 10 years, it means that the deficit will be $3 trillion less in 10 years than it is now. But I bet you that actually what they mean is that they will try to spend $3 trillion less unless something comes up. But if they can actually cut $3 trillion over the next 10 years, does that mean they could cut $1.5 trillion before levying the $1.5 trillion in new taxes on the rich? And what is their definition of rich? And are we talking individuals or private businesses or both? I believe they would be hard pressed to generate $1.5 trillion from just individuals. So that would mean that private businesses will have less operating capitol, which means that private businesses won't hire or will move what they can to different countries (ala Bermuda, India, etc...)

Actually the term that the Media is using is "the Wealthiest Americans". I don't know about you, but what is the cut off for Wealthiest? 2 year's ago Obama thought it was $250,000 per year.

Here is an excerpt from an article dated May 5, 2009. From CNN which is odd because I have never really thought of them as even close to the middle.

"What is possibly more galling than the easier ride of the super-rich is that raising taxes probably won't accomplish much when it comes to getting us out of these troubled times.

Consider a couple of harsh realities:

Soaking the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. It only changes who is doing the spending - the government or private citizens.

Soaking the rich doesn't even seem to increase tax revenues. The top marginal tax rate has fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, from 91% to 28%; it's now 35%. But individual tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn't varied much at all - it hovers at about 8% - and its variations don't correlate with the top tax rate. The reasons are many, but the bottom line is that as government deficits soar to unimagined levels, taxing the rich isn't likely to yield nearly as much as governments are hoping for, and it may not yield anything when the numbers are all totaled.
The best alternative is to rein in spending. If we are going to create record deficits, it would have been better to do it by cutting taxes than by jacking up spending, but that battle is over. Now let's be sure not to increase the stimulus, as Obama has suggested we might, and not let taxes rise in 2011 as they're scheduled to do. Most important, the Federal Reserve needs to keep interest rates low, which research shows is the main factor that ends recessions.

There is one thing that soaking the rich will do effectively, and that's redistribute wealth.

Obama's new budget would increase federal payments to low- and some middle-income Americans through increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and other programs. Candidate Obama was quite clear that he intended to do that, so he can rightly claim that the voters gave him a mandate for it. Let's just understand that reslicing the pie to give the rich a smaller piece doesn't make the pie any bigger - and won't get us out of the recession any faster."

So yeah that was two years ago. Now something else I wonder about is he just focusing on income or assets? Income is easily defined for most of us, but what about the retired rich who aren't earning any yearly income? Are they going to take what someone has already earned and paid taxes on already? Of course they are. Because even if they are living off investments, those investments are increasing in value, but that value has already been taxed by the government before it even gets to the company that made the money. Usually many times. Then it gets taxed again when they get it for their own personal use. The funny, or sad thing is, that it would probably be better for those people to withdraw all their money and bury it in the backyard or stuff their mattress. I actually love that idea because then the government couldn't touch it! Oh wait a minute they could take it as suspected drug money, my mistake.

I now understand why people put their money in off shore accounts and only use in the market what they can afford to lose. It's just like gambling.

Stupid Government...