Home > Controversy > Analysis: Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

Analysis: Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

October 19th, 2011
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10.19.2011 original publish date
05.02.2013 number format in “[]” update / minor updates/ replaced broken links with updated links or used PDF files from original links to maintain references
08.10.2015 Since our publication of this report 4 out of 5 (80 percent) of our videos were taken down (deleted) by YouTube. The only video that was not deleted was published by Occupy Wall Street who said “Capitalism is over” and “you can have sex with animals.” We have replaced the videos with new uploads by 3rd parties where available. Please advise (@netadvisor) if any video is not showing.

09-26-2011. Protesters use the Internet in a park near Wall Street in the financial district of Manhattan, NY. Photo Credit: Spencer Platt (Getty Images). Courtesy: Time. Edited: NetAdvisor.org

Analysis: Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

original article written by Net Advisor

Excerpt: See who is behind Occupy Wall Street. There are more radical elements to this group that some in the media are willing to admit. Our Analysis: Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party. We believe we have the most comprehensive article on Occupy Wall Street on the web right now. It took eight days of in-depth research to complete this report which includes five videos and plenty of data backed up with over 130 links from credible sources in our 24-page report.

[1] MANHATTAN, New York. There has been much coverage over the Occupy Wall Street protests which have expanded in a number of cities in the USA. Some have argued that Occupy Wall Street protests are similar to the Tea Party.

I would have to argue there are major distinctions between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. To compare similarities is like calling Barack Obama a Conservative, and Ronald Regan a Liberal.

[2] Behind Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Wall Street seems to be a mixed group of mostly (not completely but many) including unemployed younger liberal college students, recent unemployed graduates and others who are against the status quo, the more liberal to the radical left. Based on reading their protest signs and listening to interviews, they seem to think that Capitalism, as they call it “corporate greed” is the root of all our problems. They also seem to think that they represent 99% of American’s interests (Source: Occupy Wall Street website, PDF).

Unions have joined the “rage” as it serves their political agenda by taking focus off the Obama Administration and on to them. What is Obama going to campaign on? How many jobs he created? None, unemployment and the deficit is higher since he took office. Did Obama get out of Iraq? No. Did Obama get out of Afghanistan? No he increased troops there. Obama expanded troops in Pakistan, Libya, and now Central Africa. Obama has our troops spread thin, and he wants to cut their ability to defend America at the same time? Does that make sense?

[3] Occupy Wall Street Has Support of Liberal Affiliations
Associations of Occupy Wall Street include the liberal political organization MoveOn.org, and more left leaning AFL-CIO. They are clearly against the Tea Party and of course the GOP (Source: Occupy Wall Street Event, PDF).

Sure, they have their free speech rights even if the other side of the spectrum doesn’t agree with them, and vice versa.

The problem here is that at least one (unknown) media persona (PDF) is using her position at Huffington Post (her post linkPDF) to write “independent” journalistic articles defending Occupy Wall Street. Then Occupy Wall Street used this press article as a citation to support as “evidence” as seen in their Wikipedia entry (PDF, page 16). As I discovered in this investigation, that the writer at the Huffington Post is in fact politically liberal-leaning, and clearly defends and supports liberal agenda.

Now again, I’m not intending to hammer liberals in this article per se, just trying to sort out the facts from the myths. I completely respect First Amendment rights of free speech in the press, etc., even if I may not agree with 100% of their ideology. But they have every right to say what they want to say as long as it does not infringe on other people having equal rights. Thus, it’s fine for a “journalist” to write about liberal issues, but to use their position in the media as a tool to cover support for a protest “organization” questions journalistic integrity.

Clearly we have different media arguing various political view points, even thought when I was growing up media just called it as it happened. Sure, much of the time media does a decent job in getting the story. When it comes to politics, obviously personal agenda often comes before independent reporting.

The anti-Wall Street organization supporter Vitchers who apparently works for a Wall Street listed firm, AOL (new owner of Huffington Post) claimed in her 09-26-2011 Huffington Post article (post linkPDF):

“To say that the demonstrators are only hippies and radicals pining for 1968 would be a gross misstatement. Rather, the demonstrators come from diverse backgrounds: environmentalists, feminists, former and current Wall Street bankers, traders and brokers, anarchists, socialists, members of the LGBTQ community, teachers, students, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, people of color, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, retired NYPD police officers, members of the FDNY, journalists, musicians, photographers…the list could go on and on.”

— Tracey E. Vitchers said at Huffington Post

Really? Wall Street bankers, brokers, and traders who make a living on thriving capitalism are against capitalism? Really? I didn’t see in the article how she drew that conclusion. Huffington Post should place this under “Opinion” and not as a “news article.”

Vitchers is entitled to her view, but let’s not kid ourselves, her Twitter followers and those she follows tend to support the more politically left. Again this is not to pick on Vitchers personally, just want to show the distinction of attempting “independent” journalistic reporting and one’s personal bias.

Again, what singled her out was the Wikki entry for Occupy Wall Street that cited her article as “evidence” for Occupy Wall Street’s cause. We’ll unfortunately; an opinion is not exactly academic or evidential support for any kind of an argument.

[4] Occupy Wall Street Has Support of Communists, Rogue, Radical & Terrorist Nations
According to Occupy Wall Street’s Wikipedia entry (page 12-13, PDF), they cite a couple U.S. friendly countries such as Germany and Canada, albeit more socialistic countries.

However, Occupy Wall Street also cites rogue nations as supporters of their cause such as:

1. Iran – a supporter and financier of terrorism;

2. Communist rogue nations such as North Korea;

3. Another communist oppressed state such as China;

4.  Greece – a county who’s social policies have lead the country to technical bankruptcy;

5. Support from anti-government leader Lech Wałęsa of Poland;

6. And support from one of the newest socialistic anti-USA leader of Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez.

If I was to start a movement, unless I supported such radical causes or governments, I don’t think I would want to be associated with communists and terrorists, would you? Apparently, according to Occupy Wall Street’s Wikipedia entry (page 12-13, PDF), they do – and they and cite their support from such said rogue, communist, and repressed nations that support their cause. Are these the people you would want to be associated with?

[5] Former Russian Premier Weighs in on Occupy Wall Street
The only person that makes some sense to me is former Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s apparent suggestion (p13) that:

“Americans should put their own house in order before attempting to do such with other countries.”

— says former Russian Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (p13)

On that note, let’s all exit our military from around the world, and let everyone fend for themselves? That will save trillions of dollars.

We might as well also stop providing food, medical and financial aid to counties in need too right, because clearly the U.S.’s “house is not in order,” right?

We need to figure out how to get 46 million people off food stamps in our country. The U.S. food stamp program has increased by at least 10 million (or about 28%) since Obama took office (Data Avail as of Nov 2009, – eight months additional data not avail at time of post)[Math: 11-4-2009: 36 million on food stamps. 08-22-11; 46 million on food stamps. Difference: 46 Million-36 Million = 10 Million increase; then 10 Million divided by 36 Million = 27.77% or rounded 28% increase of food-stamp dependency].

I’m being a bit sarcastic here about not giving critical food and medical aid to those in need, and the U.S. government is not likely to change any of these policies anytime soon, nor will Occupy Wall Street. The government doesn’t really want to pull all our troops home. Why? Because they would be off government military payroll, and come back to no jobs. And in an election  year, the last thing Obama needs to see is even higher unemployment rate. So new wars Obama shall find.

Bush fought two wars as we then believed were related to 9/11. Obama continued those campaigns, expanded Afghanistan, as said earlier we’re in Pakistan, Libya, and now Central Africa. Did you ever think this anti-war president would be expanding, starting, and fighting simultaneous wars in four Muslim countries and in the middle of Africa?

And Dear Andrew Joseph of the National Journal, if you think that, “U.S. forces (in Central Africa), while combat-equipped, are not there to partake in the fighting” you’re smoking something illegal. Every modern war, conflict (choose your synonyms) the U.S. has ever been in started with “military (CIA) advisors.”

Arab Spring Photograph

[6] Occupy Wall Street Seeks ‘Revolutionary Arab Spring Tactics’
Now correct me if I’m wrong but the Arab Spring protests were focused on mostly repressive governments, seeking democracy not aimed at corporations operating in such counties. According to Occupy Wall Street’s website:

 “We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends…”

— Source:  Occupy Wall Street’s website, 10-13-2011 (highlight added/ red box blocks ad solicitations)

[7] American Nazi Party and Communist Party Declares Support for Occupy Wall Street
More radical groups join Occupy Wall Street. The latest jump on the band-wagon is the American Nazi Party who released this memo (PDF captured) and the Communist Party (Source: The Daily Caller and Fox News). To insure the radicals keep their manta for generations to come, a book was published called, “Tales for Little Rebels.” The book is aimed at children covering radical (brainwashing) political tales.

So Far, as we have covered (cited above) Occupy Wall Street Consists of:

1. Left liberal organizations.

2. Those who want to destroy Democracy.

3. Those who want to destroy capitalism and free markets.

4. Terrorist supporting governments.

5. Communists supporting governments.

6. Repressive supporting governments.

7. Socialistic supporting governments.

8. The Nazi Party (in the USA).

9. The Communist Party (in the USA).

10. And together are seeking to use Middle-East Arab Spring “Revolutionary” tactics –  which by the way, all the Arab Spring protests turned very violent and many people died. So, sympathetic non-violent liberals, make sure you wear your vest.

As someone who actually has a research education in the social and behavioral sciences, I would argue based on the behaviors of the above governments and organizations, radicals want someone to become a martyr – a symbol that they think will further their cause. This of course is a false reality, just as if one was to have 72 virgins upon their death for their cause.

On October 18, 2011 Occupy Wall Street members marched against NYPD accusing officers of excessive force during their arrests. If you have never watched a true-reality police show, please allow me to explain something to Occupy Wall Street. If you are subject to arrest by law-enforcement, and you resist arrest (aka fight, run, use physical resistance, are unruly, etc., that is called “resisting arrest” – a separate charge).

“§ 205.30 Resisting arrest. A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor.”

— Source: New York Penal – Article 205 – § 205.30 Resisting Arrest

Your best bet is to go cooperatively, not make a spectacle of yourself, and have your day in court.

[8] Peaceful Protests or Unruly Crowd?
Occupy Wall Street has cost the taxpayers of New York $3.4 Million in overtime pay since the protests began last month (Source: NBC News New York). On October 6, 2011 NYPD arrested some 28 people after demonstrators charged police barricades. Officers reportedly were forced to use night sticks and pepper spray to fend off unruly protestors (Source: NY1.com News).

An unloaded short barreled rifle with a pistol grip and ammunition box is shown in this Seattle Police Department photograph released October 18, 2011. A 40-year-old convicted felon was arrested near the Occupy Seattle protests after police found him carrying an unloaded rifle, Seattle Police said on Tuesday. REUTERS/Seattle Police Department/Handout

An Occupy Wall Street protestor in “Occupy Seattle” was arrested on suspicion of possessing a semiautomatic assault rifle. The 40-year-old man in question is reportedly a convicted felon. Some 40 other arrests have been made in the same area over the past month (Source: Reuters).

Peaceful Protests or Unruly Crowd?


On 10-14-2011, in Denver, Colorado, police in riot gear moved away some hundreds of OWS protestors and arrested some two-dozen from the State Capitol.  Also in New York, police arrested 14 people who were obstructing traffic “by standing or sitting in the street, and others who tuned over trash baskets, knocked over a police scooter and hurled bottles” (Source: Associated Press/ Bloomberg-BusinessWeek).

[9] Radial Elements of Occupy Wall Street May Suffer from “Groupthink”
This section could be a book, and there is a ton of research available that anyone can look up on-line or in public or university libraries. Radial Elements of Occupy Wall Street may fit the profile of the Groupthink mentality.

What is Groupthink:
“Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”.

“Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups” (aka police, the GOP, Tea Party, “Wall Street,” corporations, and anyone that is not part of their Group mentality). 

Further there are eight symptoms of Groupthink including:

“Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.” This has led to arrests by protesters who ignore the laws and rights of others because that interferes in their view of what law is or should be.

Another psychological symptom of Groupthink is:

“Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.”

Protestors, who may be in the 1,000’s somehow seem to think that they represent 99% of the opinion of the country. This of course is based on the group’s thinking and not based on any fact, science, or academic study.

[Groupthink quotes source: Psysr.org]

Members ‘suffering’ from Groupthink are more likely to:

  • Be dogmatic.
  • Justify irrational poor decisions.
  • See their actions as highly moral.
  • Stereotype outsiders.

[Source: Changing Minds.org]

Keep in mind that not everyone in the group has to have a psychological dysfunction, it will be key influential people that brainwashed this dysfunction, and those who are against the group are Now the group’s lawyers are taking charge to defend the street radicals.

[10] Occupy Wall Street Lawyers Threatens the Courts
Occupy Wall Street lawyers such as Martin Stolar have threatened to tie up the courts if their demands are not met. Stolar demands that all charges be dropped against the approximately 800 people arrested in New York. The OWS lawyers call this “justice.”

Stolar said that if all protesters didn’t have their charges dropped then he would seek a trial for each person (Source: CBS News New York). The result could tie up the courts, which in our view could cost New York City tax payers potentially millions. Each person should stand trial for the charges against them. If found guilty by a court of law, the appropriate fines or sentence be imposed.

Defense attorneys Martin Stolar (left), and Ronald L. Kuby (right).

[11] Occupy Wall Street Lawyers Experienced in Representing Alleged Radicals
Attorneys Martin Stolar and Ronald Kuby seem to have experience in representing radicals. OSW Stolar previously represented Shahawar Matin Siraj – a Pakistani terrorist suspect “on charges of conspiring to blow up the Herald Square subway station in New York” (Source: NY Daily News PDF). Siraj was found guilty of his NY subway plot attempt and is currently serving 30 years in prison (Source: NBC News (PDF)).

Separately, Attorney Ron Kuby is representing an alleged protestor who said that a NYPD inspector pepper sprayed his client, and is arguing that the officer be arrested for 3rd degree assault (Source: CBS News NY). Kuby has also represented accused al-Qaeda terrorist suspects including Ahmad Wais Afzali (legal complaint).

Kuby also represented individuals allegedly involved in the World Trade Center bombing and separately “a Somali pirate who allegedly aided the hostage-taking of American ship captain Richard Phillips” [Sources: Wall Street Journal and Law Office of Ronald L. Kuby’s website (PDF as of 10-17-11)].

So Far What else Have we Added to Occupy Wall Street?
Now we have added radical attorneys representing radical clients that support radical causes. Are these the people you want in your government? It’s no wonder these people can’t get a job. If you owned a business, are these the people you would consider to handle your money and run your business?

[12] Operation Paranoia?
Occupy Wall Street posted a message on their website on 10-13-2011 stating an “Emergency Call to Action.” Their beef this time was the New York Police Department and the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg –  a former registered Democrat, former registered Republican and currently an “independent,” told the Occupy Wall Street crowd that Zucotti Park needs cleaning from the apparent mess from Occupy Wall Street. The response? Occupy Wall Street wants more people to go and occupy the park in question. They fear that a park “cleaning” is an excuse to “shut down #OWS for good” (Source: OWS Post).

New York City’s Zucotti Park is privately owned – not taxpayer owned – and that is where protestors have been camping out for the last month in this particular region. The park’s owner, Brookfield Properties decided to postpone the park’s clean up and is trying to arrange something with protestors to help keep the park “clean, safe, available for public use and that the situation is respectful of residents and businesses downtown” (Source: Fox News PDF).

[13] Public Opinion Polls:
The largest by number of the polls with over 286,000 votes however technically not a scientific poll is done by Fox News. The voters say (as of 10-13-2011 PDF) that 36% or 105,000 some votes suggest Occupy Wall Street has “…no idea how jobs are created or how a free-enterprise system works.”

Occupy Wall Street protest set up laptop computers in New York’s financial district, on September 20, 2011. (CC BY Paul Weiskel). Courtesy: The Atlantic. Edited: NetAdvisor.org

[14] The Irony of Hypocrites
After watching numerous videos (these were “interesting“) and reading published stories, Occupy Wall Street seems to be against democracy and against capitalism as they tweet on their iphones, watching Netflix movies on their ipads, while drinking a cup of Starbucks coffee. According to YorkDispatch.com there was a meeting held on 10-12-11 specifically at “Starbucks (Coffee)” – a U.S. corporation listed on Wall Street.

“A first meeting of Occupy York will be held Wednesday night as local residents join a national movement protesting the actions of Wall Street.

The meeting will be at the Starbucks “to address the local and national problems we face,” according to organizer Maria Payan.”

— Source: YorkDispatch.com, 10-12-2011 (PDF)

Occupy Wall Street is not too realistic to think that “Our democracy is never going to work as long as money controls the policies.” I’m not sure about the meeting where a number of members of Occupy Wall Street chanted “capitalism is over” and that “you can have sex with animals.” Video:

Occupy Wall Street: “Capitalism is over” and “you can have sex with animals.”


There is definitely something hypocritical about anti-corporation activists, who freely buy products made by those same corporations they hate, and holding a meeting at another corporate-owned location.

I would further argue that Occupy Wall Street has increased political support by the Obama Administration – a left-socialistic group of 60’s liberal hippies who now run the Democratic Party and who want bigger government, more control over business, control over our lives, and less rights and freedoms for citizens.

Their goal, as we argue is to make people more dependent on government, to crash capitalism and to create a socialistic government.

Occupy Wall Street protester wearing an “anonymous” Guy Fawkes mask holds up a sign in New York’s financial district on September 17, 2011. Photo by Carwil Bjork-James. Courtesy: The Atlantic. Edited: NetAdvisor.org

[15] Misinformed or Just Propaganda?
The occupy Wall Street Crowd such as the masked person pictured above has some irrational idea that the top 1% pay no income taxes.

Myth: The rich pay little or no income taxes.


“In 2002…the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes…”

— Source: USGovinfo.about.com/ U.S. Treasury (PDF)

Further the so called “wealthiest Americans” saw their share of taxable income go up since 2002, not down.


“In 2008 the top 1% of Americans paid 38.02% of all individual income taxes…

the top 5% paid 58.72% of all income taxes

the top 10% paid 69.94% of all income taxes

the top 25% paid 86.34% of all income taxes

the top 50% paid 97.30% of all income taxes

the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all income taxes.”

— Source: National Taxpayers Union (PDF)

Myth: The “rich” benefit the most from taxes.


“America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households receives roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid. Households with middle-incomes receive $1.30 per tax dollar, and America’s highest-earning households receive $0.41 (41 cents) per tax dollar.”

— Source: Tax Foundation.org (PDF, P1)

Myth: The “rich” have all the money.


“Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending.”

— Source: Tax Foundation.org (PDF, P1)


[16] Ignorance is Bliss
In doing research for this report, I came across a page for arrests of Occupy Wall Street. A sympathetic OWS poster on Yahoo! Answers (PDF) seemed to think that because OWS had some 1200+ arrests that is a “true grass roots movement.”

So in order to prove your point, you have to go to jail?

Further, the poster also called the Tea Party “f-f-f-f-Fake” and one other poster said, “The Tea Party is a JOKE and it’s finally being exposed as a fraud it always was.” The poster cited no support for their claims.

The so called “f-f-f-f-Fake” Tea Party “Joke” managed to laugh all the way to the ballot box in November 2010 by helping to sweep the liberal Democrats out of the House of Representatives in the biggest political change since 1928 – and that’s no joke.

Clearly it’s this kind of uneducated ignorance that fuels the Occupy Wall Street crowd and supporters. They don’t need any support for their argument. A fantasy is their evidence, and jail has been their reality.

2011-10-08 According to one Occupy Wall Street protestor makes the jump from if you’re a capitalist, then you are also a racist? Photo: Alex Brandon (AP)

As stated earlier, the Tea Party is a threat to the establishment as seen by the November 2010 election. That is why people from the political left have called the Tea Party “terrorists,” “hobbits,” “racists” and whatever other slander they can try and paint their identity. So according to the Occupy Wall Street sign in the image above (left), if you have a job and your company makes money, then you’re a racist. This must be true, because a cardboard sign says so?

[17] Occupy Jail
I have not read any stories where the Tea Party members were arrested for trespassing, or civil obedience as the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) crowd has repeatedly. In New York, protestors blocked traffic lanes on the Brooklyn bridge which resulted in some 700 arrests.  There were 141 protesters arrested in Boston, and another 175 OWS protestors arrested in Chicago for violating local ordinances. People are free to protest, but not violate traffic, civil or other laws that infringe on other people’s rights or risk public safety.

In contrast, the Tea Party represents the exact opposite of that ideology. They seek less government intervention, more power to the states, fiscally conservative balanced budgets, and a Constitutional government.

Tea Party Rallies

[18] Tea Party: 2009 Beginnings
CNN claimed in an opinion piece that the Tea Party was founded February 27, 2009 when people gathered in 22 cities to protest against Obama’s spending stimulus bill. I would argue that is incorrect. The Tea Party movement was really sparked by CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s rant on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) on February 19, 2009 from the following live video:

Tea Party movement sparked by CNBC’s Rick Santelli’s rant on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) on February 19, 2009.


[19] Tea Party: How They are Different from “Occupy Wall Street”
The Tea Party was and is still not asking for a hand-out; they are not asking for welfare, they are not asking for more jobless benefits, they are not asking to destroy capitalism, take down democracy, nor demand money that they are not entitled to from other people. They don’t have attorneys who have represented terrorists; they don’t represent the Nazi party, or the Communist Party or the Socialist Party. The Tea Party is not demanding for student loan forgiveness, having someone else pay their mortgage, and they certainly have not been defecating on police cars, or subject to mass arrests for trespassing or civil disobedience.

[20] Tea Party: Primary Goals
In short my view of Tea Party’s primary goals are as follows:
1. Balance the Federal Budget using real math, not mathematical trickery.
2. Enact a line item veto.
3. Stop deficit spending.
4. Maintain a fair tax system for all.
5. Hold members of government accountable for the action or inaction of the will of the people.
6. Control the security of our Northern and Southern Borders from illegal activity.
7. Keep hold to a Constitutional government.

According to their Wikipedia entry (PDF as of 10-13-2011):

The Tea Party endorses, “reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.”

Wikipedia entry (PDF as of 10-13-2011)

Part of the problems in government is deficit spending. Despite the argument that President Bush was a big spender, the reality is that President Obama’s Deficit will exceed 8 years of Bush in just half the time. The result of Obama’s massive spending spree led to the first credit downgrade of the United States in history.

[21] Biggest Occupy Wall Street Hypocrites
Michael Moore:
A net-worth of some $50 Million from controversial movie sales such as “Fahrenheit 911” and the anti-capitalism film “Capitalism A Love Story.” More could have never made this money without movie studios, distribution channels, marketing companies, advertisers, and equipment all created in a capitalistic culture. Try taking a video camera (made by some corporate entity) and filming in a 3rd world country. Then find a wall to show the film and charge the county-wide poor $6-10 each for watching the film. Good Luck! Moore would have never made this kind of money if it weren’t for a capitalist society.

George Soros:
A net-worth of some $22 Billion which nearly all the money came from his hedge funds – buying and selling stocks, currencies, etc., on — Wall Street. If Wall Street and global financial markets didn’t exist he would not have earned all this money from investing in these free markets.

Soros denied any financial involvement supporting with the anti-capitalist movement, however Reuters stated they found:

“indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street.”

Reuters (PDF)

Warren Buffett:
A net-worth currently about $39 Billion, Buffett seems to be having a “senior moment.” Buffett, a registered Democrat is arguing for more taxes for the so-called “rich.” Not sure what exactly defines one as “rich.” If you lived in Guatemala and had $20,000 you are rich, in the U.S., you’re economically challenged.

Buffett is welcome to pay whatever amount of extra taxes to the Treasury he feels he is underpaying. I would argue that if you ask most anyone with a job, they will complain that they pay too much in taxes, regardless of income. Buffett made all his money investing in… that’s right, Wall Street public and private businesses. If Wall Street free-market capitalism didn’t exist, we may never have known a Warren Buffett.

[22] Buffett’s Latest Clash
Warren Buffet has said that the so called “rich” pay lower taxes and get more tax benefits than anyone else (Source: Forbes). Please Warren cite in the tax code or from the Treasury that says people of higher income pay less money than anyone else.

What Buffett, President Obama and others are leaving out in their argument is that much of their money is invested in long term securities (stocks), treasures and the like. The income and sale of such securities are subject to a 15% long-term capital gains tax, for investment held for 1 or more years. Before having a hissy fit Occupy Wall Street, know that this tax rate applies to you and everyone else in America equally. All you have to do is hold any IRS qualified investments for 1 year and 1 day.

[23] Lower Capital Gains Benefits Seniors & Everyone, Not Just the “Wealthy”
Also keep in mind that there are many seniors who have investments that produce regular dividends. These seniors who many I worked with when I was working at a top Wall Street firm, saved their money, invested it over their lifetime and now they are living on those earning. Many are not “wealthy” by today’s standards and also are supported by Social Security. But as long as they have that 1 year and a day holding period on those investments they are taxed at a lower rate on their investments.

If Obama wants to lose the senior vote (the people who vote more than any other group), just tell them that they will be taxed at 28% (the Clinton Tax Rate) – an 87% increase over the current 15% rate. I’m sure none of them will mind at all.

— Net Advisor

Government pulled these same ridiculous tax stunts during the Great Depression. They raised taxes on business and the so called “wealthy,” and the wealthy slowed or stopped investing and shut down businesses. Result: Unemployment went up through the roof from 3.3% in 1929 to about 25% in 1933 (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov), P6, Parr2, highlight added).

The whole purpose of lower capital gains taxes is to ENCOURAGE long-term investment. It is not the magic bullet, but it helps, and anything we can do to not burden Social Security any more the better.

The U.S. should consider dropping capital gains altogether. That extra money can put money in the hands of the people who earned it.

For most of the population this can help pay off consumer debts, flow into society with new investments by business, and the income savings will eventually be used to purchase things thus creating demand for items, thus creating jobs to produce them. What a concept!

Net Advisor

[24] Where the Problems Are
Higher taxes will not create jobs or spawn investment. Instead it creates more government spending. During the recession of 2002, President Bush lowered taxes for everyone, which actually created jobs (please see Table 3), and got us out of that recession.

The Democratic controlled Senate rejected the bipartisan House plan in September 2011, and instead of a balanced budget, Democrats implemented another “Stop Gap” bill that allows more government deficit spending and all without a formal budget.

The U.S. Senate is in violation of the 1974 Budget Act that requires an annual budget. In fact the U.S. Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in over 900 days – the entire time Obama has been in office.

Further, the Democrat led Senate by Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) not only rejected the bipartisan plan of the House, they also rejected President Obama’s budget plan. 

— Source: CapitalWatch.org (paraphrased), 09-08-2011  PDF (share the link)

I can see the liberal view point of just not wanting to accept or compromise with any plan that was not of their own making, but when the liberals in-totality reject their own party leader – the President’s liberal plan, what does that tell you?

[25] Some of the Roots of the Problems Rest with Policy Makers
The real problems root from the failed policies that have been in force for decades. The CRA of 1977 (Jimmy Carter, expanded under Bill Clinton, continued under George W., and now Obama) – contributed largely to the 2008- housing crash.

In 1993 CNN aired a debate with then Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) and Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot (I-TX).

CNN debate with then Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) and Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot (I-TX) over the merits of NAFTA (1993).


Full Debate 1 hr. 14 min.

Al Gore said:

“Side agreements” protect labor… NAFTA is a “good deal for our country” and that we “we’ll create more jobs with NAFA.”

— Vice President Al Gore in CNN Debate about NAFTA, 1993 (Video Link)

President Bill Clinton said in this CBS interview in 1993:

“If there are more jobs spread more uniformly in Mexico, the problem with illegal immigration over the next few years will be lessened.”

— President Bill Clinton in CBS Interview about NAFTA, 1993 (Video link)

Ross Perot said in the 1993 CNN debate about NAFTA:

“This (NAFTA) is not good for the people of either country.”

— H. Ross Perot, 1993 (YouTube deleted Video) (Secondary print source PDF)

Some media said in 1993 that Al Gore ‘won the NAFTA debate,’ but history has demonstrated that Gore and Clinton were completely wrong about NAFTA’s job creation in the USA.

NAFTA Result:

According to UFCW324 – a U.S. Workers Union organization:

“The United States had a $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico that supported nearly 30,000 U.S.  jobs.” As of May 3, 2011 “682,900 U.S. jobs have been lost or displaced since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994, a new Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study finds.”

— Source: Economic Policy Institute (PDF), 05-03-2011

We will lose even more American jobs if we don’t enforce the border. The latest DHS reports show the lowest border arrest since the early 1970’s under the Obama Administration. President Clinton suggested that we open the borders and that will solve the deficit. The opposite is the true. Look at any border-state’s budgets and the cost of educating and caring for, and in some cases locking up illegals.


2010 Forbes Billionaires List (image: csmonitor.com/ Forbes/ Graphic News)

[26] Is America Losing its Billionaires?
The 2011 Forbes World’s Billionaires now show 60% of the top 10 billionaires come from counties other than the USA (Source: Forbes PDF). The world’s wealthiest person is from —- are you sitting down on your local border fence? Mexico — that’s right, Mr. Carlos Slim & his family have amassed some $74 Billion from telecommunication in Mexico. In 2010, 70% of the top 10 world’s billionaires made their fortunes from outside the USA (please see graphic above).

Forbes also noted that China doubled the number of billionaires on this year’s list from 2010, and Russia (specifically Moscow) has more billionaires than any other city (Source: Forbes PDF).

Rest assured, these people didn’t make their fortunes protesting the faults of capitalism; nor demand a wealth transfer from people who had money before them so they could get rich too.

They had a business idea, worked hard and long and managed to make something work. One might argue that some of these countries have corrupt elements, and Occupy Wall Street people are thus encouraged to go to Beijing, China; Mexico City, Mexico; or Moscow, Russia and chant their complaints in the street. I’m sure those counties will welcome open arms to protests against their government and business.

If you took all the money from the top 10 billionaires (including all the foreign citizens) (approx $342 Billion in 2010) and let the government redistribute that money & assets based on government’s spending, the U.S. government would burn through all that in just about 86 days (average gov spending since 2007 = $3.97 Billion per day).

[27] Politically we have a fundamental question before us:
Do we go back to the Constitutional governing, balanced budgets, and power back to the states and individual freedom from massive nanny regulation; or do we have government takeover of industry, and the regulation of our lives to the highest detail.

Our forefathers set that government up for us some 235 years ago, and the United States is a place that every other 3rd world nation wants to emulate, or come to the U.S. legally or illegally.

Capitalism may not be perfect and needs some oversight for fairness. Keep in mind that fairness does not mean we take things from other people and hand out those things to people who whine the loudest.


Images, video may be subject to copyright, courtesy noted respective owner.

Original Content Copyright © 2011 Net Advisor™ All Rights Reserved.
Update/ Revised Copyright © 2013, 2015 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

Related posts:

Categories: Controversy
  1. markm8128
    October 21st, 2011 at 00:13 | #1

    Back, again!

    So…I am genuinely mystified by this…. Why do right-wingers, who want to wage a ‘culture war’ against liberalism…keep attacking Stabucks?? I see you highlight ‘Starbucks’…. in Red….

    I don’t get it!! Is it only liberals…who like Starbucks? I see Starbucks in every state. And… exactly what is wrong with Starbucks?? I love Starbucks! I’ve worked hard all of my life, paid my taxes, and put money away… So, aren’t I entitled to go into Starbucks, and relax, sip some coffee..listen to the light music, access free wireless….read the New York Times….and, yes…check out all of the fine ladies who come in for some treats….?

    So…is this really something that only liberals enjoy? I really don’t understand! Or, is it the fact that Starbucks serves green tea…that really irritates you? I am guessing that is what upsets you…because I can’t imagine conservatives don’t like a good cup of coffee, now and then?

    Or, is it that they offer all of their employees health insurance? Or, is it the fact that they offer cinnamon for you to add to the coffee…that really galls you? And for that matter…why are conservatives even trying to wage a ‘culture war’ against liberalism? Is this even possible? Do you think you can shame liberals into not going into Starbucks? Remember…. liberals are no longer living in Haight Ashberry, and alot of liberals make more money than you….

    I really find this perplexing! Whats up with that??

    • October 26th, 2011 at 10:07 | #2

      Mark, let’s try and stay on topic. There is no ‘culture war.’ No one is “attacking” Starbucks. If you are referring to the OWS meeting held at Starbucks the article pointed out that Starbucks is a publicly traded corporation listed on Wall Street – the antithesis of what OWS seems to be chanting against. That’s it. Please try not to read into something that is NOT explicitly said.

  2. markm8128
    October 19th, 2011 at 22:18 | #3

    <“I must have hit her pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh, kid?” — Han Solo (ESB, 1980)

    LOL! Not quite… Firstly….I might quite likely be your senior….since I am very close to retirement 🙂

    But I do appreciate your willingness to debate the issues…since I have been cut off from some other right-wing sites….when I tried to ask some simple questions.

    This is not a time to hide behind blind ideological thinking…either left or right. So…when you try to chaaracterize this as a movement that is being instigated by communists and socialists…you are doing no favor to truth. Yes..there are many people like that…and many more. Is the former chief economist of the World Bank a 'communist'? I doubt it! Yet, he probably knows more about the inner workings of the global banking and and the global economy that any of your buddies, or your parents..or any right-wing thinkers you can name.

    So…what is it he is saying??

    Is Warren Buffet's son…who is slated to inherit more money than anybody you have ever met….a 'socialist'? I doubt it! So…why is he concerned?

    I think it is important to realize that right-wing ideology…is not 'economics'. There is a difference in methodology between 'religion', 'poilitcs', 'philosophy' and 'science'. Economics follows a rigorous scientific methodology….developing and testing theoretcial models, with quantitative empircal evidence…collected in a strictly peer-reviewed proccess.

    Right-wing ideology does none of that. It simply says the same thing, over and over…decade after decade…even though circumstance have changed. Where is the evidence?? None. It is simply…and simplistically…..a trite construction of ideology…that is pleasing to the undiscerning. (propaganda). …I would say the same about left-wing ideology…. (Communist propaganda…..Right-wing propaganda….Nazi propaganda…it is all the same thing!)

    So…the next time nobel prize winning econmists…and ultra-rich investors…come out and tell you that Wall Steet is destroying the 'Free Market'….try to understand what they are telling us!! It is important!!

  3. October 19th, 2011 at 21:10 | #4

    “I must have hit her pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh, kid?” — Han Solo (ESB, 1980)

  4. markm8128
    October 19th, 2011 at 19:10 | #5

    I salute you for doing alot of research on probably the most important political
    movement of our times. In spite of what anybody thinks, or says…this movement is not going to go away, any time soon.

    However, I would challenge a number of your contentions:

    1) With (currently) 598 million Google links to “Occupy Wall street”….I doubt if
    you have any idea, whether you have the ‘the most comprehensive article’ on the internet,
    about ‘Occupy Wall Street’.

    My website currently has more than 84 pages of links to supporters of this movement…and

    And I have no idea how my website compares to 598 milliion more websites 🙂

    2) I was surprised by your remarks:

    “Really? Wall Street bankers, brokers, and traders who make a living on thriving
    capitalism are against capitalism? Really? I didn’t see in the article how she drew
    that conclusion”

    I was surprised, because you personally mentioned 1 millionaire, and 2 billionaires,
    on your page…that support “Occupy Wall Street”. Well…the flaw in ….right-wing
    ideological thinking, that just because *SOME* people in the protest are ‘against
    capitalism”…that therefore everbody is against capitalism. Granted….I am sure you
    don’t agree with Michael Moore, or Georeg Soros! But…that is the very nature of
    Democracy, itself. We don’t have to agree with each other, all the time!

    You apparently don’t agree with the former Vice-president, and Chief Economist
    of the World Bank….Joseph Stiglitz..who was at the demonstrations….the very first week.
    Nor, with another noble prize winning economist……Paul krugmman…who support these protests.
    (Although some right-wingers…who blizted on their asses, after drinking a 6-pack…
    will say these people are ‘socialists’ …anybody with a degree in economics will
    tell you that…you cannot find a single word…in any of their scientific writings…
    that will support such drunken ideological blather!!

    Nor, are economists like Lawrence Lessig, or Nouriel Rubini ‘promoting socialism
    or communism’. Their life’s work is to study the functioning of captialist markets.

    Nor, are the ultra-rich supporters of Occupy Wall Street…..like Patrick Byrne, the CEO of
    Overstock.com…..promoting socialsim or capitalism.

    I hope you won’t delete my remarks….just because we come from different

    What Americna needs, now, is honest and open debate! Thats what made America a great country!

    And right-wingers need to look beyond ideogy..to try and understand what is going on.
    Because this movement is not going to go away, any time soon!

  5. markm8128
    October 19th, 2011 at 19:04 | #6

    on your page…that support “Occupy Wall Street”. Well…the flaw in ….right-wing
    ideological thinking, that just because *SOME* people in the protest are ‘against
    capitalism”…that therefore everbody is against capitalism. Granted….I am sure you
    don’t agree with Michael Moore, or Georeg Soros! But…that is the very nature of
    Democracy, itself. We don’t have to agree with each other, all the time!

    You apparently don’t agree with the former Vice-president, and Chief Economist
    of the World Bank….Joseph Stiglitz..who was at the demonstrations….the very first week.
    Nor, with another noble prize winning economist……Paul krugmman…who support these protests.
    (Although some right-wingers…who blizted on their asses, after drinking a 6-pack…
    will say these people are ‘socialists’ …anybody with a degree in economics will
    tell you that…you cannot find a single word…in any of their scientific writings…
    that will support such drunken ideological blather!!

    Nor, are economists like Lawrence Lessig, or Nouriel Rubini ‘promoting socialism
    or communism’. Their life’s work is to study the functioning of captialist markets.

    Nor, are the ultra-rich supporters of Occupy Wall Street…..like Patrick Byrne, the CEO of
    Overstock.com…..promoting socialsim or capitalism.

    I hope you won’t delete my remarks….just because we come from different

    What Americna needs, now, is honest and open debate! Thats what made America a great country!

    And right-wingers need to look beyond ideogy..to try and understand what is going on.
    Because this movement is not going to go away, any time soon!

    • October 26th, 2011 at 09:48 | #7

      1. Mark, after doing some digging is it true that you are not a U.S. citizen, and that you currently reside in the UK?

      2. What you are saying is that “*SOME* people” in the occupy protests are pro capitalism? Isn’t that a contradiction in their argument? Then again, what EXACTLY is their argument?

      3. “I am sure you don’t agree with Michael Moore, or Georeg Soros!”
      Please try not to make assumption on what we agree or disagree on. What was pointed out in the article is the hypocrisy of the 1% who are effectively protesting against themselves; who made money in a system that they are supposedly against.

      4. “World Bank.” Any organization that has an influence over U.S. trade, or U.S. policy that is composed of members that are not subject to U.S. Constitution, U.S. law, or the U.S. voters who in turn as tax payers are somehow legally obligated to fund such organizations who further do not represent U.S. interests; Yes, I have a problem with such organizations as such raises U.S. Constitutional issues.

      5. Noble prize winning economists. Where was Krugman, or anyone else in 2007 warning about the housing crisis, the economy, risk in banks, etc? I don’t have a Nobel Peace Prize and I figured that out in 2004, sold my house in 2005 for a profit, began posting the issues in 2007 http://goo.gl/37883 and http://goo.gl/9M2uP made money shorting the banks and the market in 2007-2009 and periodic times since.

      6. “anybody with a degree in economics will tell you that…you cannot find a single word…in any of their scientific writings…that will support such drunken ideological blather!!”
      Will ignore the ad hominems. You have a degree in economics? Did you know that economics is not a science. I also find in my experience that most economists don’t understand much about the economy.

      7. Socialism. You’re kidding right? Explain redistribution of wealth. Recommended reading.

      8. As for ideology. Agree. As raised at the of the article is the question being asked as to what direction do we take the U.S. in the next (2012) election.

      As of 10-16-2011, 78% of the people say that the country is heading on the wrong track. This number was 67% in Nov 1-7th 2010.

      On or about Nov 6, 2010, the majority of America had enough of the “Change” of 2008, and swept out the Liberal Dems in the House in the biggest political shift since 1928. Now the libs call the people in the House “disruptive.” That is what they have been sent to do. Disrupt the liberal policies that have done nothing but raise the unemployment rate and the deficit with nothing to show for it.

Comments are closed.