How much credit should the Occupy movement get for income inequality focus?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • boneheaded, but not a smidgen SLC, UT
    May 2, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    when will it register to you that taking other's money is wrong. Mitt was right, there are more takers than makers. you're just another taker, probably a government employee. here's a tip, get a job and give as much of YOUR own money to the government.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 2, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    Sorry GaryO:

    Don't believe the words of Obama.

    There is equality in this country.

    I don't care what Obama says, success is available to everybody. You are free to take it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 2, 2014 12:06 a.m.


    Let's modify for accuracy.

    "You seem to be under the impression that low earners have no obligation to the nation, and should feel no loyalty or appreciation to this great country."

    Low earners don't pay federal income taxes, and freeload.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 1, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    Hey lost -

    Sounds like you're getting hysterical, and that doesn't really help your position.

    Facts remain facts, whether you like it or not.

    And the fact remains that Reaganomics was supposed to enrich the middle class, and reduce income disparity. But it has had the OPPOSITE effect. America was sold a false bill of goods by "Conservative" leadership.

    Don't shoot the messenger.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2014 1:34 p.m.



    higher earniers are NOT fulfilling their obligation?

    they already pay about 70% of federal income taxes despite earning only 45% of total income. Seems to me they are paying MORE than their share, but that's the way a progressive tax rate works and I have no problem with it.

    Every citizen must adhere to the social contract. So that's why the bottom, who make 12% of all income, only paid 2%? Who is not pulling their share?

    despite your false claims, reality is reality and facts are facts. the so-called wealth gap accelerated under BO. the majority of jobs created during his bungling have been low-paying service sector jobs. Why invest or take risks when the EPA will shut you down or BO will claim "you didn't build that, the government did"?

    you seem to want the wealthy to not only pay 110% of all taxes, but 150% of all their wealth, because they got it on the backs of the poor.

    go back to JFK's famous quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" I would say paying 70% of all taxes IS "doing for your country"

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 1, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    You seem to be under the impression that high earners have no obligation to the nation, and should feel no loyalty or appreciation to this great country.

    EVERY citizen is must adhere to the social contract. That’s called “Good Citizenship,” a concept that seems strange and foreign to Right Wingers imbued with the ridiculous anti-Christian and anti-American idea that Greed is Good.

    The government of the United States, as established by the US Constitution, has set up a political, business, and social environment within which high earners achieved their success.

    Consequently, those high earners OWE this nation, in the form of adequate taxes.

    In spite of your false arguments, reality remains reality, and facts are still facts. One pertinent fact is that after the implementation of Reaganomics, income disparity increased at a much higher rate.

    Reagonomics, which was supposed to ensure success for the middle class, by rewarding the rich with more money, OBVIOUSLY does not work.

    It’s not money that trickles down to the Middle Class.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 1, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    Solving income inequality is great.

    I love the income of Peyton Manning, or Lady GaGa.

    All that money for throwing a ball, or singing is not fair.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2014 8:32 a.m.


    thanks for explaining. Now I see the root of your confusion. TAKING less of what someone earns is NOT GIVING them more. The money the wealthy earns does NOT belong to the government, so the government CANNOT give it to them. Actually the government TAKES tax money from the wealthy and inefficiently redistributes it to the poor.

    I'm glad I could help.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 30, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Hey Lost -

    Thanks for reaching out.

    "The gap has grown wider under BO because . . . " of inertia. Reagonomics is still in effect.

    And the lingering effects of the GW's Great Recession (also a product of "Conservatism") lasted will into Obama's time in office. Undervalued real estate and undervalued stock were ripe for the picking, and the only people in a position to benefit were the wealthy with all that extra money lying around. They bought undervalued assets, the price went up, and voila! . . . More income disparity.

    "I do not get where you say we are GIVING rich people more money."

    You don't get it huh? Gosh, I thought I went through that a couple of times.

    Well, I'll take a little more time and set the stage.

    Back when Eisenhower was President, the highest earners paid a nominal income tax of 91%. That was back when this nation was fighting a very expensive cold war and building the Interstate Highway system, and we STILL balanced the budget. That's because we had enough revenue.

    Reaganomics gives the wealthy tax money that would otherwise help balance the budget.

    I'm glad I could help.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 30, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    I wasn't sure about the Occupy Movement until I saw the actions taken against them by highly militarized police forces attacking and brutalizing people who were sitting in public places holding signs.

    From coast-to-coast the police forces acted with orchestrated attacks, breaking up protests with extreme prejudice, destroying confiscated personal property, and inflicting injuries on restrained suspects.

    Once, in one place, is a rogue police force going over the top. But the same response from New York to Berkeley? Ordered by people who buy politicians with the same casual attitude I might have in ordering a pizza. And the lack of Justice Department response? Not a coincidence.

    The message was sent. You can protest gay marriage or abortions or the environment or even the war. But if you shine a light on the actions of the super wealthy you will be hurt, and hurt badly.

    And dismissing the protesters as "dirty hippies" or "lazy" or "college students" means you aren't even willing to look at what happened and why.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 30, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    right-wing reagan worshippers who are responsible for the income inequality?

    The gap has grown wider under BO because the greatest nummber of "jobs" created during his misadministration have been low-paying service sector jobs, so why complain about conservatives?

    off-shoring - you mean because BO and his EPA makes it too expensive to produce here?

    Thanks for recognizing that those willing to work and sacrifice, take risks and create wealth are responsible for widening the gap, but don't forget there are two sides to the gap. If one side does nothing to increase their wealth, don't blame the other side for creating a problem.

    I do not get where you say we are GIVING rich people more money. Where do you get THAT idea? Could is be the $19,000 in social security payments we are giving biden in addition to his $200k+ salary as VP? Could it be the ground leases we are paying to the Kennedy family for part of the DC metro system?

    please elucidate; explain what you mean by "giving the rich more money". most rich people I know EARNED it, it was not given to them by the government.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 30, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    The whole focus of the Occupy movement was to point out income disparity, and now that income disparity is more well known, it makes since that the Occupy Movement should get some credit.

    Right Wingers who so loudly disparage the Occupy Movement should get credit too . . . for making the Occupy Movement so visible to the American Public.

    And of course it is Right Wing Reagan worshipers who are responsible for that income disparity in the first place . . . by successfully implementing ridiculous Reaganomics which tells us that the best way to decrease the income disparity is by reducing taxes for high earners, thus making the income disparity greater.

    Yeah, that's right. "Conservative" logic tells us that giving the rich more money will result in decreasing income disparity.

    To complement that, they take money away from the poor and middle class by insisting that companies should outsource American Jobs to other countries, thereby maximizing corporate profit.

    So there you go. It is "Conservatives" who should get the CREDIT for creating and maintaining America's income disparity.

    Hey "Conservatives" - If that is what you were going for . . . GOOD JOB!

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    April 30, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    OWS, and the ideology it promotes, is built off of envy, entitlement, and greed. It is an ideology that has economically ravaged Western Europe as well as everywhere else that it has been implemented, leading to high rates of unemployment, social decay, malaise, inflation, debt, and ultimately deep austerity cuts necessary to prevent the total financial collapse of nations, yet nevertheless protested by ignorant, spoiled, childish college students and other privileged groups less interested in providing for the common good of society than leeching whatever they can off of the productive classes. The fact of the matter is that in a free society there is and always will be some degree of income inequality: those who work harder, are more intelligent, have better skills and are more experienced will earn more money than those that are lazy, uneducated, inexperienced or simply incompetent. And that is precisely how it should be. A society neither thrives nor prospers by rewarding failure and punishing success. Everyone has to be allowed to sink or swim according to their own efforts, but those who can swim may (and morally should) help those who might otherwise sink, if they VOLUNTARILY choose to do so.