I agree.. you can't really trust what you read second hand about anything controversial. Money buys influence.. in the media as well as politics.

They outsource jobs to other countries because they then get favorable treatment in selling their products to there. They get treated like a hyperlocal. With disposable incomes falling in the US, many American companies are doing most of their selling and hiring overseas. The tax code encourages them to do that.

Well put..

But the one thousand different theories are basically how both science and God work..

"Write more of this trash and I'll be deleting your bookmark"

Oh boo-hoo-hoo. With pithy comments like this, you'll surely be sorely missed.

Everybody's a critic.

Don,
This is not an article. It is not journalistic reporting. It's an opinion piece — as labeled. And it is meant to elicit conversation — as it has. Ms. Salt Horn's views are her own and do not represent the opinions or views of Patch.

Mary Mann,
If you take a look at your site, your 'opinion' piece is in your 'news' feed. Also, and more importantly, on your mobile site there is no text or label that states this is an 'opinion' piece. If you look at your stats you will see a significant viewership read this site from a mobile device (smart phones and tablets). This is a huge oversight by AOL or perhaps the site's editors. As you can see your readership is not happy. Personally, if I continue to see peices of like this in your 'news' feed, I will write off the patch and move on to other news sources.

Okay, am I wrong in thinking that most of not all of the articles on Patch are written by their own employees. The reason I say that is that I don't see any buttons to start threads or articles anywhere. It seems as if it would be a much more effective resource if they allowed people to write articles. For example, the freeholder race in District 4 has had some extremely one sided articles written, criticisms have been brought up, and they have been soundly ignored. The poor candidate has not had a chance to present his views at all instead one remark he made has been seized on and used to prevent any real discussion of the issues. That is extremely bad journalism.

Mary,

why can't USERS post articles? Patch's coverage is unbalanced. If I go to Google's "Advanced Search" and run a search that only returns results from patch.com on the phrase "occupy wall" I get hundreds of articles back and only a few of them are intelligently written. The majority of them are like this one. However, a recent New York Times poll showed that support for the protesters is quite high. What's happening is that Patch doesn't represent America so much as Patch is trying to influence Americans. At the same time, if I search on Tea Party, which has far lower support in polls, the stories on Patch are overwhelmingly positive, and seem to try to give the impression that support for their "tax cuts solve everything" is far higher than it is. Do it, Google > "Advanced Search" > Search terms "Occupy Wall" or "Tea Party" > More options > restrict to patch.com > Submit query..

See what I mean?

They hate the OWS people because OWS has wisely decided to downplay the whole concept of leadership by one person, knowing that those people are always targeted for smear campaigns. With no leaders, there is no easy target for smearing and dirty tricks. Its useless. This tactic is not unlike that used in the corporate state where presidents, like Bush and Obama, are only figureheads, and they are only allowed to do the wishes of the machine. Its the exact same thing. Its like a hydra, chop off one head and ten grow in its place. Whats happened is that the repressive machine has been going on so long here its having the effect of teaching Americans tactics that are becoming increasingly effective at getting a message out that the current system is not a democracy, its more like inverted totalitarianism, totalitarianism with no charismatic absolute leader, instead, we have corporate "person" rule.

John, I realize that there are no leaders of OWS, but are there any particularly good sources of information on what people are saying there?

New York City IS near us. New York is local.

The 15-17 miles between here and midtown Manhattan is LESS than the distance from one end of New York City to the other.

Its a ridiculous attempt to try to imply that OWS is a relic of the 60s, which is pretty funny considering that only a portion of the people who are there or following this story, were even alive then, and many of them were children. (like me) So the 60s is not relevant to them, whats relevant is that they see their future being stolen from them and the corporate state treating America just as it has treated the Third World in the past, as ripe territory for pillage. They want us to engage in a race to the bottom on wages, human rights and they want to limit any discussion in the media to their own frames, for example, the "frame" that Obama is a liberal instead of the good cop in a good cop bad cop play designed to shift the overon window further and further to the right denying Americans the right to vote for anything other than their own destruction. Yes or no, coke or pepsi.

The 1% goes about "its" business stealing from the 99% as if the 99% doesn't exist, except as MEAT. Thats why the people couldn't be sitting at the healthcare debate table. They were on it, being carved up, as FOOD.

So much corporate public art are eyesores. A lot of Claes Oldenberg's giant objects come to mind. I kind of like Jeff Koons's stuff.. the piece that was at MOMA I liked a lot.. and he also did a giant dog I think maybe in Bilbao, Spain that the people there love, so much that they bought it so it could be permanent. I also like what's called "the Bean" in Chicago.. And I like that huge metal cube thats balanced on its corner in Astor Square that people can and do move.. I remember doing that as a kid.. so its been there a while..

There are some people who do really cool "algorithmic" or "generative" art that would be good in corporate spaces.. its done with math and 3D printing/fabrication techniques..

Anything but the giant clothespins and hot water bottles.. (for our headaches?)

How come we can't write opinions? If we can't participate, the opinions come down to being AOL's, in the final analysis. Since they pick shose opinions get seen, not the readership.

Modern "blogs" allow all signed up readers in good standing to post. Then the readers can mod up stories that they find the most interesting. Many of the stories here seem designed to keep people's lives very unchallenging. I am not saying that they are wrong, or bad, or that we always want a challenge, but sometimes, its important that we have them. Then afterward, we can go back to reading about breast cancer walks or restaurants, or whatever. (Which we also enjoy)

When it says "OP-ED" prior to the headline on my mobile, I clearly understand that it is opinion....OP is short for opinion, so yes it does state opinion. I thought the opinion piece was entertaining and an interesting "one persons" perspective. My statement did not say that this article is a national & local story, it states that the OWS movement is national & local.....it has broad reaching implications. So, in my opinion, an OP-ED in this forum of journalism has a place because of it's local impact.

I don't understand why people have this odd compulsion to post their thoughts on what Patch should or should not be. Patch is owned by AOL and run by Arianna Huffington. They don't owe you anything. Start your own site if you're so sure you know what everyone wants.

I see "op-ed" to mean editorial opinion.. in other words, the editors opinion..

On blogs, and on Usenet before blogs, "op" usually stands/stood for "original poster" (of a thread or comment that has been quoted sequentially)

BTW, USENET still exists, its international in scope, and not many people know about it. Most isps carry it, its on something called a "news" server.

Many mail readers also can read Usenet news. If you get email through your ISP, check to see if perhaps they have a "news" server, it usually has a hostname like "news" or "nntp" or "uucp". I bet that there is an "occupy wall street" newsgroup, and the news there is probably right from the sources.

I don't know this, I am just guessing that this might be true.

What are the best sites to see what is happening at these demonstrations, (as obviously Patch is not it) ? I saw a very informative piece last night on "Charlie Rose" (OF ALL PLACES) - Amy Goodman and another guy were basically telling it like it is, and it had to be the first time ever that I have seen such honesty on broadcast TV, ever, in my life ever. Something amazing is happening.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=op

Oh dear... I'd hate to see long-standing terms of art bulldozed by Internet assumptions.

"Op-ed" is short for "opposite the editorial page," i.e., invited opinions traditionally printed on the right page of the newspaper, opposite the editorial positions, so, say, the NYT would run its own views on the left page, then publish several opinion pieces by others on the left page, reflecting, ideally, a range of views on all sides (not "both sides," as few issues have merely two).

I don't see a problem with Patch (fyi, I'm a Patch reader from Albany, CA, but was pointed to this article by a NYC friend) not allowing all subscribers to post articles, given that all subscribers (even anonymous ones) may post comments to articles. So an article like this "infamous" one can be used by those who disagree with it to raise their own opinions.

(sorry, the second "left page" ought to be "right page")

Okay, the way I understand it is that Arianna Huffington SOLD HuffPo to AOL/Patch.

I hear a lot of people trying to say Patch is liberal or Patch is associated with Arianna Huffington, but I don't think that Patch is inherently liberal, and I think that the purchase of HuffPo may have been for reasons entirely obscure.

I certainly don't see much connection between the two. Also, saying that Patch is liberal is a bit like saying Obama is liberal. To me it looks like a very obvious attempt to shift the so called "Overton Window".

Liberal is a word with many somewhat contradictory meanings. For example, the phrase "economic liberalization" means a number of things that most in the US would associate with the right wing. Agressive deregulation, irregardless of cost. If the most "liberal" ideas expressed on Patch are trapped inside of right wing framing, Patch isn't liberal at all, so much as it is a means of controlling the public viewpoint of what "liberal" is. Its limiting.

Megacorporation AOL, which owns Patch, bought Huffington Post, not the other way around, M. Moore.

Patch doesn't pay its writers much, I hear. I don't know much more than the fact that they do pay them, but I have read comments that imply it is very little.. (not here)

Also the editors, "local editors" often have to cover areas that are physically distant from where they live and are asked to review businesses but they require them to do a great many things in order to file a review. Its difficult and the pay isn't that great. But, journalism jobs of any kind are hard to find now.

Mary, I will see if I can think of a subject that could be of general interest where I can maybe clarify some of the issues that I see the OWS protesrors discussing, that most of us don't understand, in an objective way. For example, the OWS protestors frequently mention something thats often called corporate personhood, and I can see that my own friends, most of them don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Few Americans realize that legally, corprations are now given the rights of a person, and since they cannot speak, being a legal fiction, MONEY is their free speech, by law. That is just terribly wrong. People need to understand that context and a series of legal cases beginning with whats called the Santa Clara decision.. (but in fact, it was not a decision, it was a fabrication by a court clerk) before any debates on corporate personhood make any sense to them.

Organizations like http://ReclaimDemocracy.org have a great many resources on the implications of corporate personhood and how it morphed ino corporate rule.

A simple overview of the story of the clerk and the head notes is here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person

I agree with you on the first bit 100%, roc, those sort of complaints, "condemning its publication", are pointless.

But I love your bit about the OWS protestors. I like how you grab onto the most facile explanation that SURPRISE! is perfectly in-line with your predispositions.

And Maoist? What's that all about? I'd love to hear your explanation of that one. How does roc distinguish socialists from Maoists, specifically in the context of the OWS protestors?

It's silly, but it's hugely disconcerting that so many people will pick it up and bleat it. Some of them may just not know any better... others are sycophantic repeaters.

At my most charitable, I think many have bought into the world view that was deliciously described in Sherman and Edwards' "1776" (about the enactment of the Declaration of Independence... best musical ever to be based on committee meetings)... Conservative John Dickinson is responding to John Hancock's assertion that there are not enough men of property to dictate policy:
"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."

I think that explains the popularity of a Herman Cain, who shows little to no experience or aptitude to serve as President of the United States: "He got rich, I can too, and so I need to protect the 'safety net' for rich people like I'll become..."

A progressive tax is based on the statistical reality that the richer you get, the easier it is to make money, ROC. For you to advocate for a flat tax is not advocating for fairness, what you are doing is trying to prevent fairness. Fair is recognizing that the poor mans $15,000 a year income isn't even going to put a roof over his head, let alone support a family or get him ahead of the bills. But someone who makes $250,000 a year is in a position to save and invest MOST of their money.

Here are four suggestions CTJ suggests to end the causes of injustice that OWS is protesting.
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/10/new_ctj_fact_sheet_four_ways_t.php

"If the following actions were taken, some of the inequity that is driving the Occupy Wall Street and other affiliated protests would be eliminated. Suggestions include making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, ending the tax break for corporations that shift jobs and profits overseas, implementing the "Buffett Rule," and imposing a tax on the "too-big-to-fail" banks..."

And the problem is cartoonish painting. The vast majority of means of production, property, capital, etc., in the US is in private hands. Is Social Security a socialistic program? Yes. Does having it around to ensure that the poor and old don't starve make sense? Absolutely. Is the US therefore a Socialist state? Hardly.

The puzzling thing to me is that conservatives of my youth would have resonated with the images of Norman Rockwell, where public sector workers were highly regarded, and where community was celebrated. Police kept order, firemen kept homes and businesses from burning down, and teachers educated children to grow up to be police, firemen, businessmen, soldiers, librarians and store clerks.

Now the right seems to be channeling George Lincoln Rockwell in their tactics.

Folks, I was proposing ZERO TAXES DURING YOUR LIFE, and we and our children would also get far better education and healthcare than we do now, You still attack me.

We would be saving a very large part of the defense expenditures which right now are a very large chunk of the Federal budget.

Here I am proposing to eliminate taxes, and yend the unfair and often discriminatory dynastic succession of wealth, which is squeezing out the living. say,exempt a family home of reasonable size.. (not the multi-million dollar monstrosities) and take that dynastic succession of wealth, and instead, invest it directly in the living Americans, so they can get an education and be able to get modern healthcare (as good as that that every Canadian takes for granted.) This would be paired with a national health plan that treated everybody with the best available technology, everybody the same, no ou of pocket costs. Studies have shown that that is cheaper in the long run. Its all or nothing, you can't take some of it without the whole package.

Eliminate payroll taxes.. If we did this, we could probably eliminate all taxes on living INDIVIDUALS. Including on investment income. (I don't know) All the various health programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, Health insurance, VA care, would go away, and be replaced by the healthcare administration directly paying providers and negotiating prices for things directly. Doctors and hospitals could vastly streamline their operations.

Still waiting for the definition of Maoism though and how it pertains to the protesters. Or was that just a steaming heap?

Just kidding, ROC, don't bother. You're safe throwing words like that around because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is the argument you pick-and-choose to rebut, ROC? Of all the issues brought up on this thread, you're going to a) go out on a limb and say a 100% estate tax is too much, and b) ascribe this idea to the entire OWS movement? You're an intellectually lazy person.

There's a philosophical underpinning for an estate tax as well as progressive taxation. You can't just scream "socialism!". You have to at least TRY and have an actual argument.

The only philosophical underpinning for estate taxes was to generate revenue to pay for wars.

(sigh) Wrong Kevin. Oh so miserably and pathetically wrong. Why should anyone bother to argue with such lazy people?

Certainly the estate tax served to raise revenue. But that is not the only reason, and you betray your ignorance by insisting otherwise.

Challenge yourselves, for god's sake! Stop relying on the simplistic cutesy quips. This is serious stuff, you right-wing gas bags, use your brains.

Wrong Nickolas? Take a look at the history of Estate taxes, also know as death taxes, from the IRS. The first federal death tax in this country was a death "stamp" tax established in 1797 to pay for a naval buildup in response to heightened tensions with France, and abolished just five years later in 1802. The federal death tax was absent the next 60 years, until Congress reenacted it in 1862 to raise revenue for the Civil War. After the war ended, Congress repealed the tax in 1870. The third federal death tax was enacted in 1898 to finance the Spanish-American War. As before, the estate tax was abolished after the war in 1902. With the advent of World War I, the estate tax was reintroduced in 1916 and has existed in various forms since.
Who is ignorant now? The IRS?

Here's the link:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf

Actually, there's something poetic about having the money from old estates pay for the wars (albeit fought by the young, and, often, poor).

So, how many years of federal estate tax collections would be required to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq? I'm guessing we're already decades in arrears...

I know the history of the Estate Tax, Kevin, and I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. But you are missing the point entirely.

Anyone who calls it the "Death Tax" is a kool-aid quaffer. Enjoy your drink.

This is just another example of why Rushbots are ruining this country. Why bother talking about tax reform, or any reform for that matter, when the right has such radical and inflexible views about everything, and they're proud of it!

I read that link before I posted, Kevin, and it doesn't change my argument one iota.

I guess it all comes down to what we prefer, a tax when we are alive, OR when we are DEAD.

Keep in mind that jobs are vanishing, one of the reasons is the tax breaks they give companies to ship them overseas, BTW. which should be illegal. Another reason is Moores Law.

ROC and his fellow 20% are trying to shove the "Overton Window" so far to the right that we in the 80% believe their darkness "is the new standard" and don't even try to switch the light back on.

Gee Nickolas, I must have misundertood when you said "Wrong Kevin. Oh so miserably and pathetically wrong." I thought you meant I was wrong! If you can read that link to the IRS and still maintain that we have Estate taxes due to some "philosophical underpinnings"rather than a need to raise revenue for various wars, that might suggest that you are the one being a little intellectually lazy here.
Oh and the "Death Tax" is mentioned in the IRS document itself. So I guess according to you, the IRS is a bunch of Kool Aid quaffers? My reference to it was for the purpose of clarifying it for anyone reading the link who might not have a background on estate taxes.

Kevin, do you have your listening ears on? I asked the question, you gave a knee-jerk Rushbot answer. You can redefine the question all you want -- knock yourself out -- but you're not proving me wrong about anything.
The fact that you can't accept that there might be some truth to what I am saying just proves that your mind isn't open to ideas that disagree with your quasi-religious beliefs.

I asked "isn't there a philosophical underpinning to the Estate Tax?"
You said, unequivocally, that there isn't.
You were, and are, wrong. The history of the Estate Tax on that IRS document doesn't change this.

What's that money go for.. Education. ROC.

Teach a man to fish, he can fish for life. With the right kind of education, they will still be able to get jobs. Jobs we haven' even heard of yet, Since we do know that since all new knowledge builds on the old they WILL need a solid base for their new knowledge.. Its a moving target. We also know that all of the larger sized professions are being commodiized. Now, all job security is contingent on EDUCATION. Without education, without WORLD-CLASS SKILLS, Americans won't EVER be able to stand on their own two feet as ROC professes to want. They will be life interrupted. They wont have any help, because many more people wont be able to pay taxes because they will be starving. (ROC gives most of his tax breaks- to the wealthy.) People won't be able to get married or divorced, spend or save. They won't be able to eat out, or eat in. Americans won't drive. They often won't still have a home, then they wont have a district and they can't vote. They can't afford healthcare, just Medicaid which is a loan.

Nickolas, there was no question, only your statement.If you think that Estate Taxes were instituted due to some "philisophical underpinnings" despite the fact that even the IRS publishes that they were instituted to fund wars, well then you must be drinking something alot stronger than kool aid.
There are "philosphical underpinnings" for and against the Estate Tax and many other taxes for that fact. However, absent any war at the time it is unlikely that we would have an estate Tax today.

The philosophy behind the Estate Tax is that unchecked and unearned accumulation of wealth is bad for society. For those very very few people who have enough assets to get taxed, what have their children earned? Nothing. And what will they be left with after the tax is paid? Plenty. Inherited wealth is anti-capitalist and anti-meritocracy. The Estate Tax is actually the fairest tax on earth, because you're dead and your kids still get huge buckets of money that they don't actually deserve (unless you live in a monarchy where all that matters is who your parents are).

I like to call it the "Paris Hilton Tax". So she'll only inherit $500,000,000 instead of $1 billion? Boo hoo hoo.

Luckily for the rational side of humanity the Estate Tax isn't going away. The whole "Death Tax" re-branding is simply a ridiculous pie-in-the-sky effort by the right to affect radical change in the U.S., and it will never happen.

While it can be fun to target such people such as Paris Hilton, it really is a very bad idea to formulate a tax policy based upon her or any small group. . Many hardworking families are severely impacted as a result of this tax. Many studies have shown that the Estate Tax has failed to reduce income and wealth inequality since it impacts the behaviors of those who have the wealth. High estate tax rates induce many to simply give gifts to their children while they are living or they can reduce the amount of their estate by consuming more or working and saving less.
If you would like to read a little more about this, an analysis of the estate tax was prepared by Joseph Stiglitz, who served as Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. In a 1978 article in the Journal of Political Economy, Stiglitz argued that it was wrong to look at the distributional aspects of estate taxation without considering the long-term impact on capital accumulation.

No, I'm saying that all of those professions are under attack; here in California (where I am) our tax structure (due to so-called Prop 13, which distorts home/property taxation) is bleeding municipalities and school districts of funding, so police forces are cutting manpower, and school class sizes are being raised. We ought to fix the revenue side of the problem, but the "taxes are evil" crowd fights that.

Prop 13 is particularly bad... it caps how taxes rise on property, which leads to gaming, e.g., no one actually sells commercial properties, but does deals with existing owners to keep the old tax basis. We bought our house in 2001, and still pay about 4 times more in property taxes than our neighbor, because she inherited her house (and kept her parents' tax basis).

But my complaint isn't about those professions, but what the 1% is trying to do to them.

I think that Prop 13 was the single worst thing for California that has ever happened. Its turned the schools from excellent to horrible. Teachers have to buy paper and supplies out of their own pockets.. (and they aren't paid well either)

Thats what the right is devoting a lot of energy into trying to do to NJ.

***REPLACE THE INSECURE NJ AVC ADVANTAGE VOTING MACHINES***..

Ross, tell them about the traffic gridlock in Emeryville, around the I-80 interchange, etc. And how the state can't even afford to improve decaying transit and roads because of Prop 13.

I think its true, but I think we're stupid if we make estimates of what we can expect and rely on in the current situation based on any assumptions from the postwar period. Because the shape of the economy looks more like that during the Gilded Age.. the late 1920s. or even 30s.