"Putin, Christ was not against becoming wealthy. He was against the love of money and greed. "

just like the Occupy Wallstreet protesters!

^
No...

Jesus actually had some tangible goals as well, actually had some organization, could protest without flashing people, and, lest we forget...

Jesus was Jewish--he would NEVER protest something like Wall Street! ;)

Obiwan your smug condescension and absolute refusal to listen to anyone other than Faux News about the OWS movement is really starting to grate on my nerves.

If we are comparing the Netherlands vs. the United States, I would like to point out that GDP per capita in 2009 was $47,917 (Netherlands) and $45,989 (United States). The GDP in 2009 was $792 billion (Netherlands) and $14 trillion (United States). The GDP growth in 2009 was -4% (Netherlands) and -2.6% (United States). All dollar figures are in US dollars. The per capita stat shows there is not a significant difference on an individual level between the Netherlands and the United States. Overall, the United States has a much larger, richer, and stronger economy. Furthermore, the Netherlands are part of the EU, which is potentially on the verge of collapse. A collapse of the EU could spell disaster for the global economy.

Concerning Occupy Wall Street, this movement does not represent the 99% of Americans that they claim to represent. Being part of that 99%, I do not support them. Before anyone attempts to accuse me of being part of the 1%, I would like to tell you that in August, my father lost his job. Furthermore, my mother is likely to lose her job in November. I do not blame big business for these problems, but other factors.

To the people who want our government to function as the democracy it claims to be, I have some things of which I would like to remind you. First, our government is not a democracy, and it never has been. It is a republic. Second, if you did indeed represent the 99%, you should have no problem ruling the elections. Simply elect people who cannot be bought. If you believe that there are no politicians who cannot be bought (as I have a feeling you are thinking right now), I remind you that the only candidate you will be 100 percent satisfied with is yourself. Get involved in politics. Who knows? Maybe you will find that you can be bought as well.

To the people who believed in the “American Dream” that you should work hard, go to college, and then you would get a job and make lots of money, I did not realize mature adults could be so naïve. Speaking to specifically to those in college now or those who have just left college, do you believe everything you are told? Did you not look at the state of the economy before you entered college and realize there is no guarantee of a job? For several of the people interviewed on my college campus, I noticed several of them were doctoral students. They mentioned that they were told that they should take out federal loans to pay for school. Did you not realize until now that debt is bad? Did you really need to go for a doctorate degree?

I personally have worked my butt off to pay for college by way of scholarships and my own money. My parents have been unable to help me. I am working my butt off in college to get good grades and excel in everything I do. When I get out of college, I will work my butt off to get a job. When I get a job, I will work my butt off to keep it and advance. When I retire, maybe I'll finally be able to stop working off my butt. Until then, I expect no easy way, no free money, no free education, and no unwarranted job.

Wow... sorry I'm being so long winded. I guess I finally found a forum post that I actually cared about.

Wow, so some kid in college is lecturing others about investing too much in their education in order to gain employment. Brilliant. You know the value of 'hard work', man. Heaven forbid people spend years of their life trying to get the skills they need for work and be frustrated that they can't find work. We should really listen to a kid who doesn't have to face that problem yet. God I love those profiles in courage who people on blast who worked hard but can't make ends meet or find work. You're a real fucking hero, Liberty Bell.

"the per capita stat shows there is not a significant difference on an individual level between the Netherlands and the United States. Overall, the United States has a much larger, richer, and stronger economy."

Yes, the per capita shows that on average Dutch people earn slightly more than Americans. And the total GDP shows that the US is a much bigger place - it does not reflect the strength of the economy, merely the size.

There are other ways of looking at the strength of an economy i'm sure, but looking only a GDP will not tell you much.

The growth rate does tell something interesting. It is fair to say that in a poor country 12% GDP growth is much easier to achieve, because a large percantage (12% here being larger than US growth has been for decades) of a small number (low initial GDP) is still a small amount of growth... think India/China, each has low GDP per capita, and thus an increase of 12% in either is a fairly small per person, even compared with 2.6% of the US GDP - that is, when you're already one of the worlds biggest consumers, a 2.6% increase in consumption is a larger amount of new consumption than 12% of a tiny amount of consumption..

However, this is not what is being compared here. The discussion was about the amount of increase in wealth in socialist countries compared with capitalist countries. And it seems the Netherlands has higher growth, and a higher GDP per capita.

Now this is an unfair comparison, because you could take the best US state, Delaware and look at the GDP per capita $69,667 and also the growth of 3.4%, or you can take West Virginia (best growth) with $35,052 GDP per capita and 5.1% growth... (that's a good example there, Delaware has had lower growth, but that equals and extra 2,577$ per person, compared with 1,787$ per person in growth in West Virginia)

In total, the US does not has a much richer or stronger economy, that is not what those statistics show. It just shows it has a much larger economy. You are comparing a the third most populous country in the world (312 million people, ~4.5% of world population) with the 61st most populous state(16 million people, ~0.24% of world population) the percentage of the world says nothing qualitatively about the strength of the economy in question.

"First, our government is not a democracy, and it never has been. It is a republic"

nice dodging of the quesiton. Your country happens to be a representative democracy as set out in your founding document the constitution.

Most countries which have a constitution are republics.

That does not prevent them from being democracies.

Direct democracy hasn't really been tried, afaik, since ancient greece. Perhaps now is a good time to start given the Internet's ability to bring people into contact.

"communism=atheism"

good things we are talking about Socialism, now isn't it?
By that definition, socialism=secularism

"But he didn't come to start a corporation or establish a kingdom here on Earth."

And we're supposed to take your smarmy religious lecturing about how you alone know the Truth and the Way seriously and objectively.

I agree with you though, Jesus didn't care about the world or people's living conditions. He left slaves in their chains and cared more about his own self-promotion than the misery of actual living people. We're supposed to all admire that He falsely promised his followers the Second Coming within their lifetime, and yet he never showed up.

""First, our government is not a democracy, and it never has been. It is a republic""

Ugh. Stop, please. People who say this neither know what democracy nor what a republic means. The Republic of Ireland is a republic. The United Kingdom is a kingdom. They are both democracies. They have virtually identical forms of government. Republic simply refers to where sovereignty resides (with the people as opposed to a Sovereign). It has nothing to do with the kind of anti-popular, elite-run Roman style "Res Publica" you libertarians envision.

@Putin +1 :)

And even with your definition of 'republic', the US has moved far away from that model.

Our electoral college no longer functions as a real electoral college. Electors are legally bound to vote for who the voters vote for in many states. Our President is for all intents and purposes directly elected.

The Senate is directly elected.

In most states even judges are elected, and referenda are ubiquitous.

Indeed, it is as you say. "Our President is for all intents and purposes directly elected." If this is the case, then why does the Occupy Movement seem to think that we don't have a democracy? Also we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

Putin, you seem to think that the younger generations do not have any valid opinions or insights. Perhaps this is why the older generations voted a president into office that has raised the national debt more than the presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined. Do I not have a right to speak out about a government that has placed $4 trillion in additional debt that will be carried on to my generation and our children? I am three years away from being sent into the job market, and I for one am planning ahead. Do expect a job? No. Do I want a job? Yes. Will I complain if there is no job for me right away? No. Do I believe that I will eventually get a job? Yes... even if it is something that most people would say "is beneath them."

By no means do I mean to lecture others. I am merely offering observations I have made and pointing out that the Occupy Movement does not represent the 99% of Americans.

Orathaic, you apparently didn't notice the negative signs in from of the growth statistics. The Netherlands GDP shrunk 4% in 2009, whereas the United States GDP shrunk 2.6%.

"If this is the case, then why does the Occupy Movement seem to think that we don't have a democracy?"

Because democracy implies some kind of popular control over the political process. Even though our institutions are directly elected, those elections are run by billionaires funding millionaires. The average person cannot run for national or even state-wide office and does not share any interests in common with the super rich. If the government has elections but these elections are bought and paid for by the super rich, in a government that literally thinks "freedom of speech" = how much money you have, then you can easily see why people would be agitated over the level of democracy in our system. Furthermore, many in the 99% movement which you hate think that representative democracy is fundamentally flawed and inevitably leads to this condition of political inequality, so they favor a more direct democracy with more direct citizen input. Why this is frowned upon by people who claim to love 'liberty', the constitution and blah blah blah is beyond me. Maybe you just want to feel big by crapping on people who actually are civic minded and want a better society.

"Also we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy."

Thank you captain obvious. I guess this is why you think you're going to get paid the big bucks.

" Perhaps this is why the older generations voted a president into office that has raised the national debt more than the presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined."

What are you talking about? The biggest age demographic to come out in support of Obama was the 20 somethings. The younger generation put him in office. The older generation voted in this batch of batshit Republicans in 2010, while the young people stayed home.

"Perhaps this is why the older generations voted a president into office that has raised the national debt more than the presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush combined"

About whom are you speaking? If you're talking about Obama, this is clearly not true.

"Do I not have a right to speak out about a government that has placed $4 trillion in additional debt that will be carried on to my generation and our children?"

You don't have a right to ridicule people who have invested their time, money, and energy in educating themselves and can't find work because the economy is crappy, because the bankers destroyed it. You're not in that position yet. You can talk a lot of smack about how you'll work hard and find a job and not complain but that's just speculation. You have no idea what's going to happen. You have no right to claim you're better than anybody else. Believe it or not, it's not just young people complaining at these protests. Lots of middle aged and older people there too. You'd know that if bothered to participate instead of bitching from your college dorm room and bragging about how great you are. You continue to speak about what you have no clue about. People on the street fight for a better future that you, a freeloading college student who does nothing but bitch, can enjoy. They're doing your work for you. People put their bodies on the line in Oakland while do nothing but attack them. It's really quite pathetic.

" I am merely offering observations I have made and pointing out that the Occupy Movement does not represent the 99% of Americans."

54% of Americans expressed their support for the protests. You're in the minority. They're fighting for all of us whether you support them or not. You can continue to lick the boots of the bosses and act like the plight of corporations is the civil rights issue of our time, and maybe you'll be rewarded with some cushy middle management position. But for the bulk of the population who hasn't sold their soul yet, and still believes in the idea that we're all in this together and that it's not right to get ripped off by parasitical Wall Street fat cats, they're going to be out there on the street.

First, you have clearly not read things that I have posted. My father is unemployed. My mother is likely to be unemployed. All the money for my college education has come through my job that I have held for three years, scholarships that I have worked to achieve, and federal loans that I have accepted (knowing that "Hey, I'll have to pay those back"). I am by no means freeloading.

Second, the first 41 presidents (from George Washington to George H.W. Bush) accumulated a national debt of $4.1672 trillion. In less than three years, Obama raised the national debt $4.212 trillion.

Third, as of October 25, 2011, a CBS News poll reported that 43% of Americans support the Occupy Movement, which is not 54% and is not a majority, but a plurality.

Fourth, I never said that I hated the Occupy Movement. I merely disagree with it and believe that it should produce some solid plans and goals. Maybe then I'll support it.

Fifth, I was not part of the 2008 presidential elections (due to age). Also, I supported a Democratic candidate in the 2010 elections. I support whichever candidate I believe is better, not necessarily one party or the other.

Sixth, I appreciate that you finally used a statistic to support your claims (even if it was inaccurate). Does this mean you may actually produce some statistics to support the Occupy Movement's claims? Or will you keep bitching about big business without presenting any facts?

I notice that you seem to enjoy attacking me personally. I'm surprised that adults can have a discussion with the maturity of middle schoolers. I thought it would be slightly more intellectual. However, I do acknowledge that you are older than I am, wiser, and more experienced. I would never make a claim to the contrary.

"I am by no means freeloading."

You didn't get my point. You're freeloading off of the efforts of the 99% movement. Their efforts have benefited you, whether you acknowledge it or not. Because of them, the discussion is no longer how much should we cut, but rather Obama just announced a new plan to help with student loans, which helps you. I do enjoy how some libertarians have no problem taking federal loans but complain about the overspending of the government.

"Second, the first 41 presidents (from George Washington to George H.W. Bush) accumulated a national debt of $4.1672 trillion. In less than three years, Obama raised the national debt $4.212 trillion."

You do realize that FY2009 is Bush's budget, right? Are you including that in your figures? Doubtful since you said "in less than three years". He has only submitted two budgets. Furthermore, he inherited an economy that tanked right before he took office, contracting by 5% in the 4th quarter of 2008. We were hemorraging 800,000 jobs a month in the first weeks he took office. When the economy tanks, tax revenues go down. Yet, Bush had us involved with two wars we were still paying for. Wars that were paid for with borrowed money, aka debt. Obama still had to pay for that. Obama had to still pay for Bush's tax cuts which cost us 1.7 trillion in revenue. Obama had to still pay for the perscription drug boondoggle which cost us another trillion, all of these policies were under Bush.

Yet despite all of that what you say is still ridiculously false.

As of 12/31/2001 - our debt was a little less than 6 trillion
As of 12/31/2008 - our debt was 10.7 trillion - > that's 4.7 trillion in debt. That doesn't even count the fact that our economy cratered at the end of 2008 and Obama inherited all the crap from the Bush economy, not to mention the first Bush budget. If you include 2009, which you should, then the debt total is 12.3 trillion.

If you include the first year Bush can really take credit and end his deficits in 2009, we go from 6.4 trillion to 12.3 trillion, nearly a doubling of the debt.

Obama went from 12.3 trillion at the end of 2009, to 14.3 trillion in mid-2011. That's an addition of 2 trillion in bad economic times. You're not even close to being right.

Reagan's debt at the beginning of his term was a little over a trillion, he left office with it being 3 trillion. Reagan's economic conditions weren't nearly as bad as Obama's and he increased the debt by the same amount.

"Third, as of October 25, 2011, a CBS News poll reported that 43% of Americans support the Occupy Movement, which is not 54% and is not a majority, but a plurality."

That's nice, but the other polls from earlier this month said 54%, specifically the Time Magazine poll. It's favorable ratings are well above its unfavorable ratings. So you're still well in the minority regardless of what poll you look at.

" I support whichever candidate I believe is better, not necessarily one party or the other."

Congrats?

"Does this mean you may actually produce some statistics to support the Occupy Movement's claims? Or will you keep bitching about big business without presenting any facts?"

Which claims in particular? The claims that numerous corporations pay zero taxes? The claims that corporations stole people's pension funds? The claims that banks pocketed bailout money while closing down factories and laying off workers? Be specific.

"I notice that you seem to enjoy attacking me personally."

You attacked the integrity and work ethnic of a whole slew of people. If you can't take it don't dish it out. You're the one who decided to get personal by talking about how hard you work and how you don't whine. Don't use this as ammunition in your argument if you can't defend it.

I stand corrected. The fiscal year 2009 was indeed part of the Bush administration. I apologize for my ignorance. I thank you, Putin, for correcting this. Perhaps, you will allow me to return the favor? Obama has submitted three budgets, for the fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Concerning the national debt, the data obtained was from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw. Further information can be found at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debtposactrpt.htm, which lists financial data for each fiscal year and month. The government's fiscal year begins in October. For the fiscal years 2010-2011 the debt is estimated (check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/, Table 7.1) to have increased $1.947436 trillion. It is estimated to increase by a total of $5.232375 trillion by the end of the 2014 fiscal year (within the blame period as you that you are placing on Bush). By contrast, for the fiscal years from 2002 to 2009 (the Bush administration) the national debt increased by $5.677450 trillion. Over eight years, Bush managed to accumulate about as much debt as Obama is estimated to accumulate in five. I'd be curious to know where you got the figures you quote. Where they also from the White House's own government website? Please, enlighten me.

Speaking of which, my request for support for your claims could easily be supported by some website addresses were you get your information.

I would like to point out that the poll you support, conducted by Time Magazine, took place between October 9th and 10th, and "surveyed 1,001 adults" (http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/13/time-poll-obama-leads-head-to-head-match-ups-with-republican-rivals/). Also important is that only 787 individuals knew enough about the movement to answer subsequent questions. The poll I mention, conducted by CBS News, took place between October 19th and 24th, and was "a random sample of 1,650 adults nationwide" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125515-503544/poll-43-percent-agree-with-views-of-occupy-wall-street/?tag=mncol;lst;3). The estimated error for this poll is plus or minus three percent. The CBS News poll is more recent, and represents a larger sample of the American population.

Whether it is 54% or 43%, the statement I am trying to make is that neither number equals 99%. I am frustrated with the assumption that I identify with this group.

My words against the "integrity and work ethnic [sic] of a whole slew of people" where based on personal discussions I have had with individuals, and the beliefs they have supported. Most of those comments were directed to people my own age, and not anyone else.

Concerning how hard I am working, I did not mean to boast or brag. I merely meant to spur others to come to some of the realizations that I have, i.e. life isn't easy. Apparently, my remarks did not have the effect that I intended, and I apologize.

My main problem with the Occupy Movement is that they are protesting business without presenting any real goals. I believe they should instead protest our government, and present practical plans, rather than idealism.

On an interesting side note, according to the same Time Magazine poll that you support, 44% of the people approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, while 50% disapprove. That would put us both in different minorities.

@ArajiAtara: Thank you for proving my point. The statement was America's economy would be better off than a 'socialist' country like the Netherlands. There really isn't much difference. Perhaps, one could argue, if the Netherlands followed American policy they would be even richer. Thank you for the numbers. As for the growth numbers, those simply show the crisis affects us all. But I think in America it has more effects: people not only losing their job but also their house etc. Frankly, we don't have that here. And up until now, it works. But I guess you guys get to pay taxes and stuff.

@Orathaic: I protest against your division of 'socialist' or 'capitalist' countries. Most European countries are capitalistic too. And what's a socialist country anyway? I read somewhere that with America issuing health care now all countries with a triple A rating now have (some form of) healthcare. Anyway, it's not my goal to start another sub-discussion.

I regret most people appearantly read over my most important contribution: that trying to label anything long past with modern labels is anachronistic. The Roman Empire is capitalist nor socialist because those ideas didn't exist at the time. It is only in retrospect that we try to draw conclusions, and mostly to support our own views. I listen to the teachings of Jesus because they are the teachings of Jesus. If someone wants to explain those teachings as socialist, it is perhaps an honor. But you can't say Jesus borrowed from socialism because it didn't exist at the time. More likely, socialism borrowed from Jesus.

* get to pay less taxes

"http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-has-now-increased-debt-more-all-presidents-george-washington-through-george-hw"

So to your support your claim you cite something called "Conservative News Service". Good objective source there. The headline for today is denouncing Michelle Obama's defense of gay rights. Nice. If you're interested, my numbers come here:
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

They cite: treasurydirect, the census, and the BEA.

"Over eight years, Bush managed to accumulate about as much debt as Obama is estimated to accumulate in five."

So you're using projections of budgets which haven't even been implemented to claim that Obama is racking up this huge debt. The only number that isn't an estimate is 2010. Clever deception. Look at the tables for spending, particularly discretionary spending. Look at the 2010 budget. Discretionary spending was less than Bush's 2009 budget. The estimate for 2011 is an increase of 300 billion from Bush's 2009 budget. And yet you're going on and on about how Obama's spending is somehow out of control. After 2011 discretionary spending is projected to be roughly the same or less than 2011 every year.

In FY 2001 discretionary spending was 1.86 trillion. By the time Bush left off, FY 2009, discretionary spending was 3.52 trillion. Look at receipts, since that's what the real story is. Look at the decline from 2008 to 2009. 2.524 trillion in receipts in 2008, 2.105 trillion in 2009. That's a massive drop. Receipts have maintained at that lower level while spending has increased due to mandatory spending, mostly, not discretionary. The deficits have little to do with Obama's "spending". Let's get that straight.

You didn't bother to address the points about the bad economy or inherited wars/tax cuts/medicare drug benefit. How much of this debt is actually caused by Obama's policies? His stimulus was far less than the tax cuts, the wars, or even the medicare drug benefit. The stimulus cost 787 billion. The drug benefit cost 1 billion. You're blaming Obama for low tax receipts which are caused by a horrible economy and global crisis that he did nothing to cause. Look at Bush's budget numbers. Do you think the deficit shot up in 2009 because spending all of a sudden soared? No it was because the economy tanked. And you're advocating policies that are going to make it worse.

How about your claim that "Obama is racking up more debt than Presidents 1-41 combined". That sounds bad, right, only you don't mention that until the 1910s the federal government barely spent any money at all. Gross debt figures are also misleading, since they don't account for inflation, population growth, or anything of the sort. So while technically true based on projections, your claim is rather meaningless. Bush I increased the debt from 2.87 trillion in 1989 to 4.35 trillion in 1993. Reagan went from less than 1 trillion (994 billion), to 2.868 trillion. That's almost a tripling of the debt. Bush II went from 5.77 trillion to 11.88 trillion, more than doubling of the debt. That's based on your government tables.

"My main problem with the Occupy Movement is that they are protesting business without presenting any real goals. I believe they should instead protest our government, and present practical plans, rather than idealism."

They have real goals, you just don't agree with them. Government isn't the problem, Wall Street is. Big Money is. Corporations are the problem. It's time the target the people who created this mess, instead of trying to chop down the very institutions that could protect us if we allowed them to.

"44% of the people approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, while 50% disapprove. That would put us both in different minorities."

Considering the state of the economy and the fury of the opposition, that's a good number.

*1 trillion, not 1 billion.

you're right, i missed the minus sign. Never-the-less. It looks like there is a correlation here.

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:NLD&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+netherlands#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:NLD:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

@Orathaic: "I protest against your division of 'socialist' or 'capitalist' countries. Most European countries are capitalistic too. And what's a socialist country anyway?"

Yes, i wasn't claiming that netherlands was a socialist country, though there are those in America who claim as much, and those in this thread who claim that it is socialist policies which leads to a reduction in the generation of wealth.

As the google public data graph above shows - regardless of the social programs in netherlands - both the US and Netherlands showed growth in the past decade and small decline since the global recession.

Added some other countries for comparison:

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:NLD&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+netherlands#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gnp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:NLD:USA:CHN:LUX:NOR:SWE:CHE&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en


- Luxembourg is doing surprisingly well, I don't know much about the reasons for that. It's a small state though (a duchy).
- Norway and Sweden even more have an elaborate health and subsidies system. In Sweden, college is free. But also tax rates of around 50%.
- Switzerland is somehow profiting. It is always profiting.

Ofcourse the bigger countries (Germany, France, UK) are below the US. I'd say US's numbers are exceptionally high for a country of that size.

luxembourg: "Services, especially banking and other financial exports, account for the majority of economic output."

They must have not been banks which were not at risk and have thus benefited from the collapse of their competitors.

Norway has a major difference from Sweden, north sea oil resources, which again can be sold without reference to any banking crisis.

Sweden and Denmark on the other hand both seem pretty close to each other in performance - indicating that neither is a fluke, both have taken policy decision which have lead to the growth seen here.

When comparing Luxembourg to the US, it seems a little unfair. Alas this data can't graph DC versus Luxembourg...

*or perhaps not policy decisions, but culturally and economically Sweden and Denmark are very similar.

maybe this is a more informative graph: http://www.gapminder.org/labs/gapminder-china-india-eu-usa/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2.9316129032258;ti=2006$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pp59adS3CHWfKPVb7dEexFA;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=rvalNLkeEs-y9Tp1T-SZb0g;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=pp59adS3CHWcajNS5Y44uLw;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID1;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=240;dataMax=152481$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=8.8;dataMax=83$map_s;sma=50;smi=2$cd;bd=0$inds=i131_l001952aMa5;i337_d001980aja1;i336_d001980aXa0;i59_h001952bUam;i158_p001952ciae

it shows individual states (and provinces of China, states within india) but compares GDP per capita, with life expectancy.

Putin, first, I must congratulate you on your ability to make baseless and/or uninformed claims. Your attack on CNS.com was particularly enjoyable. CNS stands for Cybercast News Service, not Conservative News Service. Furthermore, the article you refer to has the headline "First Lady: Kagan, Sotomayor Will Protect Right to 'Love Whomever We Choose'." This doesn't sound like the attack you make it out to be.

Concerning bias, I looked up your skymachines.com chart. I also checked out skymachines.com itself. skymachines.com is "The Airplane Store." Why do they need to list presidential debt on their site? It is a small link at the bottom. The link sends the user to a chart that the first line reads "HEADLINE: By far, the president who increased the Natl. Debt the most, by all measures, remains Ronald Reagan. Clinton was best." Sound biased? I'm assuming that they are referencing the percent change during presidency, and not the actual debt itself. They list Reagan's percent change as 189%, though he increased the national debt by roughly $1.6 trillion over 8 years (by the way, your data doesn't match your claims). Obama has increased (using their numbers) $2 trillion in 1.5 years. Using their data, over eight years he would have a 53.2% increase, but would raise the national debt by $10.836 trillion. That is 6.75 times more than the Reagan increase.

You cannot claim that I am using biased information in the debt projections. Indeed, if it were biased, it would be biased in your favor. This information came straight from the White House, and is supported by the White House.

Concerning military spending, you are aware that military spending has continued to rise during the Obama administration? And that it is "estimated" to continue to fluctuate, but remain at high levels (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf, page 71 of 755)? Obama has done a remarkable job of getting us less involved in wars. Move troops out of Iraq, move them into Afghanistan! Let's help NATO in Libya, but don't send actual men! Let's aid Turkey in their invasion of (where else?) Iraq! They're going after a terrorist group that we recognize.

Concerning the Bush tax cuts, I'd like to point out that these cuts lowered taxes for all citizens. I'd also like to point out that the wealthy already pay a higher percentage than the other demographic groups. Claims that they aren't paying their "fair share" are, in fact, reversible. However, I don't support raising taxes on the lower classes. Will I be upset if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire? Not really.

The drug benefit you mention cost $300 billion, according to http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt. Not $1 trillion, or $1 billion.

"Government isn't the problem, Wall Street is. Big Money is. Corporations are the problem. It's time to target the people who created this mess..." How? What do you propose that we do? What does the Occupy Movement propose? I have yet to hear any practical plan that may be implemented to "target the people." All I hear is people complaining. Perhaps I am underinformed, and you could enlighten me.

"... instead of trying to chop down the very institutions that could protect us if we allowed them to." That is exactly what I am saying. Allow them to. Create laws, bills, plans, to stop "Big Money." Take a legitimate course of action.

I would be view Occupy Wall Street in a much more favorable light, if only they would come together and say "Boycott ___________," "Vote to pass the __________ Act," or "Vote ____________ into office." Give me a plan, not complaints, and I may actually agree with you.