Occupy Wall Street Statistics - Why They're Upset and Why EVERYONE in America Ought to Be Too

[Shortline Bus]

Gorgor you missing the point. I agree mostly with VG8 on this one in an earlier post that both the rich and poor abusing the system. The tax system in America is one of the root of this problem. The very rich not paying their fair share of taxes. In this current economic system, there are some from wall street who got even more rich from taxpayer monies from the bailout. And i did not even mention crooks like Madoff who also are partially at blame for this crisis.

And let us not forget the bootleg banks giving hundred of millions of dollars in loans to borrowers to buy homes or cars they should never be approved of.

 

While legally they can be as rich as they want, the majority of Americans the other so called '98%' just want the government to tax the rich people 'fairly.'

Yes Gongor some of the protestors are 'lazy' andshould take any job for now until the economy improves. Yes even for college grads taking a job at McDonald's or Sears for now. With that said this crisis, still revolves around the fact, the super rich not paying their fair share of taxes.

 

 

Since when is it a crime to make more money than other people?

 

And what exactly do these protestors want? Do they want the government to tax the rich more and give these poor people who are doing nothing all day but lying down in a park free money?

 

It's not the rich people's fault for them deciding to get a degree in history or literature or whatever other worthless thing they chose. And how about instead of parking their lazy asses in a park all day and night, they go out and actually make an effort to find a job? If they're this desperate then I'm sure that there's a McDonalds or Burger King somewhere in the tri-state area that will hire them, even if it does mean minimum wage.

 

They're mad that there are people making more money than they can even fathom so they want the government to take their money and redistribute that to the poor. Oh wait, what was the name for that again? Oh yeah, socialism. They want to completely destroy the foundations of this country which is based on capitalism, and the American Dream, and change it into a socialistic nation because they're throwing a tantrum about how people are making millions while they're too lazy to even go out and apply some effort.

[MTARegional Bus]

It's not the rich people's fault for them deciding to get a degree in history or literature or whatever other worthless thing they chose. And how about instead of parking their lazy asses in a park all day and night, they go out and actually make an effort to find a job? If they're this desperate then I'm sure that there's a McDonalds or Burger King somewhere in the tri-state area that will hire them, even if it does mean minimum wage.

 

Most of the protester have collage degree yet have a difficult time finding a job.most of them have to resort in working at low wage jobs just to pay of the collage loans, is there something wrong here?.

 

And let us not forget the bootleg banks giving hundred of millions of dollars in loans to borrowers to buy homes or cars they should never be approved of.

 

You can thank john mccain for deregulating wall street.

[Gorgor]

Gorgor you missing the point. I agree mostly with VG8 on this one in an earlier post that both the rich and poor abusing the system. The tax system in America is one of the root of this problem. The very rich not paying their fair share of taxes. In this current economic system, there are some from wall street who got even more rich from taxpayer monies from the bailout. And i did not even mention crooks like Madoff who also are partially at blame for this crisis.

And let us not forget the bootleg banks giving hundred of millions of dollars in loans to borrowers to buy homes or cars they should never be approved of.

 

While legally they can be as rich as they want, the majority of Americans the other so called '98%' just want the government to tax the rich people 'fairly.'

Yes Gongor some of the protestors are 'lazy' andshould take any job for now until the economy improves. Yes even for college grads taking a job at McDonald's or Sears for now. With that said this crisis, still revolves around the fact, the super rich not paying their fair share of taxes.

 

What I absolutely don't understand is what fair share means to them. The rich are paying around a 50% tax rate whereas the poor are only paying 20%. The average rich person is paying more in taxes than what the average poor person makes in a year, and they say they're not paying their fair share? Hell, my family's taxes are 6 figures and we're supposedly not paying our fair share??

 

What the hell do they mean by fair share anyways? Make rich people pay so much in taxes so that after taxes they take home the same amount of money that the "99%" (or whatever they're called) take home after taxes as well?

 

I've also heard about the rich using loopholes to pay less in taxes. If that's the case then PROTEST THE GOVERNMENT to remove such loopholes. If people decide to use those loopholes, which are legal, you certainly cannot blame them for that.

[Tokkemon]

Srsly. The Rich folks already pay more than their fair share. Why should they be taxed more?

[SubwayGuy]

Like I've said before, national governments are unable to realistically tax major corporations because they'll just find haven elsewhere in a nation with different tax laws. I'm sure China would welcome Walmart's headquarters with open arms.

 

And that's why everything I've proposed has centered around high individual income tax rates (especially for high earners), removing tax shelters/loopholes like investments (with the exception of qualifying retirement accounts), and lowering corporate tax rates.

 

With single digit corporate tax rates, but stiff penalties about deductibility of pay in excess of a certain amount and the disallowance of stock options as pay, you create an environment where business pays low taxes, but the business will pay higher taxes if it a) outsources or pays top earners in excess of a certain adjusted-for-inflation amount.

 

This effectively pits the shareholders against the executives - it essentially creates a place in business where the shareholders, as part owners of the corporation, will be against executive compensation in excess of what the business can deduct for tax purposes because it harms the retained earnings of the business. The added retained earnings of the business, since they cannot be paid to executives without tax penalties, will therefore be given to current employees as pay increases, evening out income disparity somewhat...or be used to expand the size of the workforce, reducing unemployment and alleviating the high workloads of the employees already at the company.

 

The lost tax revenue from corporations would then be made up by a small financial transactions tax placed on trading activity in excess of certain volume thresholds (preventing this from being passed down to the "little guy"), increased taxes on wealthy individuals and couples, the elimination of the preferential tax rate for capital gains on all accounts other than non-qualifying retirement account, and reduced loopholes in the tax code as a whole...basically all the stuff I listed in my reply to engineerboy's post in this or another OT thread.

[SubwayGuy]

Since when is it a crime to make more money than other people?

 

And what exactly do these protestors want? Do they want the government to tax the rich more and give these poor people who are doing nothing all day but lying down in a park free money?

 

It's not the rich people's fault for them deciding to get a degree in history or literature or whatever other worthless thing they chose. And how about instead of parking their lazy asses in a park all day and night, they go out and actually make an effort to find a job? If they're this desperate then I'm sure that there's a McDonalds or Burger King somewhere in the tri-state area that will hire them, even if it does mean minimum wage.

 

They're mad that there are people making more money than they can even fathom so they want the government to take their money and redistribute that to the poor. Oh wait, what was the name for that again? Oh yeah, socialism. They want to completely destroy the foundations of this country which is based on capitalism, and the American Dream, and change it into a socialistic nation because they're throwing a tantrum about how people are making millions while they're too lazy to even go out and apply some effort.

 

You are an idiot, and you clearly lack a brain. Keep repeating the crap you hear on the news.

 

Not every poor person is a lazy drug addict on food stamps with nothing to do.

 

Not every rich person is a highly motivated business genius who pays their taxes and has the best interests of this country again.

 

Believing that an over the top level income disparity is bad for an economy is not socialism. Capitalism allows for some income disparity, but it has NEVER been equated with greed and plutocracy...which is bad economics. And whenever it has historically, it has failed.

 

There are plenty of COLLEGE GRADUATES getting rejected from McDonald's or Burger King in the current economy, you know that?

 

People are lying down in the park because for them that has more of a future - fighting back in protest - than going to work at a minimum wage job that will never improve their standing in life, or spending more of their savings trying to find a job that got outsourced.

 

But when the Egyptians did it, it reminded of 1776? When Americans do it, it's a nuisance and it's interfering with your sleep patterns right?

 

You sound like an uneducated kid with "all the answers" when you write stuff like this but it's sad because some of the "kids" on this site already have a better idea than you about these things.

 

Hell you probably supported the bank bailouts too, they were "necessary" right? And those bonuses the bankers earned for destroying the financial system were totally worth it too since "if they could get that money they should" because "greed is good" and "they earned it" huh?

[SubwayGuy]

Clearly some rich defenders find it convenient to respond to threads without reading the facts in them:

 

What I absolutely don't understand is what fair share means to them. The rich are paying around a 50% tax rate whereas the poor are only paying 20%. The average rich person is paying more in taxes than what the average poor person makes in a year, and they say they're not paying their fair share? Hell, my family's taxes are 6 figures and we're supposedly not paying our fair share??

 

 

That sure doesn't look like the rich are paying 50% to me. Surely someone who claims to be from a "rich" class that he claims is so educated can articulate to a middle class schlep like me the difference between a MARGINAL tax rate and an EFFECTIVE tax rate.

 

What the hell do they mean by fair share anyways? Make rich people pay so much in taxes so that after taxes they take home the same amount of money that the "99%" (or whatever they're called) take home after taxes as well?

 

 

The reason America has always had a progressive tax rate is the rich owe a greater burden to society for making their high earning possible. Now, their tax responsibility roughly mirrors their income, meaning they are NOT paying a "greater burden to society" for enabling them.

 

 

And if that's so then why does the United States rank behind Egypt, India, and Iran in income parity...just 14 spots ahead of the disastrophe that is Mexico?

 

I've also heard about the rich using loopholes to pay less in taxes. If that's the case then PROTEST THE GOVERNMENT to remove such loopholes. If people decide to use those loopholes, which are legal, you certainly cannot blame them for that.

 

WHAT the **** do you THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING??? They are standing on Wall Street because Wall Street is a nationwide symbol of pay without performance, greed, and corruption.

 

Do you really think they are begging Chase bank and the New York Stock Exchange to "tax the rich" when they hold up those signs???

 

They want the laws changed because the laws are not working, and they feel the laws are not fair. By your logic, every law that didn't exist...never should exist...because it doesn't exist, so therefore we don't need it. Why by that logic, there would still be slaves in America, women wouldn't be able to vote, and we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights. So using the "they're following the rules so it's legal" argument is NOT a valid argument against US Citizens exercising protected free speech and free assembly calling for the laws to be CHANGED.

 

Srsly. The Rich folks already pay more than their fair share. Why should they be taxed more?

 

Because the United States is trillions of dollars in debt and has a failing, shell economy. Either those with get taxed, or those without get taxed. Taxing those with, and changing the rules of the game to foster economic growth and greater income equality (but not socialism/communism! just closing the spread) will allow the United States to get out of debt slowly and avert a crisis.

 

If those without get taxed, this nation will collapse into a banana republic where the rich have everything and everyone else is poor. Eventually, the poor will eat the rich, split them out, and have a violent free for all a la French Revolution, and set up something new in its place. Our own "Arab Spring" but Arabs won't be involved. And once that starts, all bets are off, and everyone's security is at stake.

 

So better to tax the rich and change the game than risk all that. This nation is founded on individual liberty, opportunity for all, and freedom of expression. It is not founded on corporatism, greed, and the indentured servitude of the masses.

[SoSpectacular]

A lot of people are still failing to see through the illusion...

[Urbanfortitude]

A lot of people are still failing to see through the illusion...

 

Yeah I gave up on adding my 2 cents to this ordeal. I couldn't push the argument nearly as well as SubwayGuy is doing. But I know why we're in this mess and its been pounded to home who are the people responsible. Now what I want to see is if any of these guys trying to take the reigns next year have any sort of desire to actually fix this problem or should I just start thinking about training myself to live off of the land somewhere.

[SoSpectacular]

I honestly don't trust any of those guys in the running

[Gorgor]

The reason America has always had a progressive tax rate is the rich owe a greater burden to society for making their high earning possible. Now, their tax responsibility roughly mirrors their income, meaning they are NOT paying a "greater burden to society" for enabling them.

 

The rich owe less fortunate people money because they allow them to make so much? That, right there, is the basis of socialism.

 

Your graphs are only helping my argument. The rich are still paying a higher percentage than the rest. How much do you want them to be taxed? 80%? 90%? If that's the case then there is absolutely no incentive to put in a little more effort if you know that practically all that money will go to the government.

 

You're against the bailouts? You do know that ALL OF THE BANKS HAVE PAID BACK ALL OF THE BAILOUT MONEY, PLUS INTEREST TO THE GOVERNMENT, right? Also, you do know that if a bank goes under then the people will suffer as well. Yes, the government insures all bank accounts for up to a certain amount, but if there are millions of people demanding their money then it could take months, if not years, for the government to give them all their money.

 

Do you want everyone to be equal? Everyone to make the same amount of money? Yeah, that's called socialism.

[SubwayGuy]

Gorgor proves yet again why he has no clue again.

 

The rich owe less fortunate people money because they allow them to make so much? That, right there, is the basis of socialism.

 

Yes. The rich make money because the rest of society purchases products made by the companies they own. The rich make money because many of them inherit it, and it is easier to maintain a rich standing in life than for a poor person to climb up - social mobility graph below to prove my point:

 

 

Your graphs are only helping my argument. The rich are still paying a higher percentage than the rest. How much do you want them to be taxed? 80%? 90%? If that's the case then there is absolutely no incentive to put in a little more effort if you know that practically all that money will go to the government.

 

What you are advocating for is a flat tax which is actually very "socialist" - treat everyone the same, rich or poor, right?

 

The reason for a progressive tax in society is that the rich owe a greater debt to society for the lifestyle they are able to sustain. America has long held that each should be taxed according to his/her means of payment. Additionally the poor require some assistance from time to time. Prevention of poverty prevents crime, and encourages economic growth. Social mobility creates hope so that those who are disenfranchised to not turn to violence. But I bet you're religious, like most conservatives. Wasn't that guy Jesus who founded the religion in favor of helping the poor...? Who? Oh he must have been an illegal immigrant with a name like that, right?

 

Maybe we should just *** the poor in the *** and give them nothing right? Allow the rich to have everything, except what they "choose" to give the poor when they feel charitable. Surely that would solve everything in your myopic and greedy worldview.

 

Your parents may be rich, but based on your attitudes and your general knowledge of things, I wouldn't count on you to do well in life maintaining it. A few bad investments may be all that's standing between you and being like everyone else.

 

You're against the bailouts? You do know that ALL OF THE BANKS HAVE PAID BACK ALL OF THE BAILOUT MONEY, PLUS INTEREST TO THE GOVERNMENT, right?

 

You are blind if you believe that.

 

AIG was bailed out. Where's that money?

 

Oh that's right it went to GOLDMAN SACHS.

 

Did Goldman Sachs pay that money back?

 

No.

 

Did the bailouts spur economic growth?

 

No.

 

They just allowed the banks to pay bonuses to the very employees who created the financial crisis as compensation. They led to no reforms. Only more greed.

 

The bailouts were a robbery of the American public by an ex Goldman employee named Hank Paulson who should be hanged for high treason.

 

Also, you do know that if a bank goes under then the people will suffer as well. Yes, the government insures all bank accounts for up to a certain amount, but if there are millions of people demanding their money then it could take months, if not years, for the government to give them all their money.

 

The people suffer more when the government allows the banks to consolidate their power and grow larger, making them more "central" to the economy, for the day they do collapse, when the government defaults because it has no more money to bail them out with.

 

Bailouts are bandaids. If you have a shattered shin, you need surgery, not a band aid.

 

Do you want everyone to be equal?

 

Funny...the Declaration of Independence, which established the United States, does.

 

Everyone to make the same amount of money? Yeah, that's called socialism.

 

Show me where I said that. Stop misquoting me you idiot, and learn to read and interpret the words that are on the page, and not the voices in your thickheaded skull.

 

What I've said was: PEOPLE should be compensated based on the value they provide to the economy. YES, executives etc. should make more than workers. HOWEVER, they should not make 350x workers. ADDITIONALLY, I've said that banks need to be strictly regulated because left unchecked they will GAMBLE with other people's money to try and make profits for themselves in risky transaction that WHEN THEY COLLAPSE take the whole economy down. To replace the reduction in fake economics (banking), REAL economics need to come back to this country via the manufacturing sectors. BOTH OF THESE can be promoted through effective taxation that penalizes excessively high earners, and outsourcers of American jobs. This will IN TURN lead to manufacturing here, and lower executive pay - still significantly higher than that of the workers - but creating JOBS which will REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT, ENCOURAGE DOMESTIC BUSINESS GROWTH, WIDEN THE TAX BASE, and coupled with strategic spending cuts in government ALLOW FOR A GRADUAL REDUCTION TO THE NATIONAL DEFICIT.

 

PS (nuanced position that Gorgor won't understand): SOCIALISM is an economic vision that has never been used in any country ever. It was bastardized as COMMUNISM, which is a system where the government and the rich control all the resources and people are all poor.

 

So which is better - what I'm promoting, which is "controlled capitalism" where people can be rich if they actually earn it and opportunity abounds for all, with all classes possessing access to the means of real production? - Or Gorgor's Greed Based Economics in which the already rich hoard everything, and everyone else "works for them" for increasingly lower pay, gradually losing everything and winding up in the debt of the rich forever (which PS is the way things are heading under plutocracy)?

 

Gorgor's Greed Based Economics sure sounds a lot like COMMUNISM if you want to throw labels out there. But who's doing that?

[Gorgor]

I don't have time to respond to this right now (I'll do it later), but I just had to say that this line made me laugh hysterically out loud.

 

Wasn't that guy Jesus who founded the religion in favor of helping the poor...? Who? Oh he must have been an illegal immigrant with a name like that, right?

[MTARegional Bus]

Gorgor proves yet again why he has no clue again.

 

The rich make money because many of them inherit it,

 

 

 

Yea just look at Rupert Murdoch and Donald trump, both where born with a with a silver spoon in mouths, both went to the best schools and collages without worrying about loans. both inherit the family business.

 

And Sadly both are out of touch with real American.

[East New York]

Since when is there a law that says that there is a limit in this country to how much you can earn? It is NOT a crime to earn well, so just stop it already. You have no proof that these CEOs are lining their pockets, only that they are earning big bucks, which in and of itself is NOT criminal. You're just looking for a scapegoat, that's all that is.

 

The part that I will agree on is there should not be a cap on what a CEO makes unless it's a publicly traded company, and even then it would still get weird.

 

If I'm the CEO, I am definitely entitled to the lions share of the pay. However, most Wall St. and other multinational executives are exponentially paid while their workers suffer. That is not right at all!

 

Yeah, that's just what you think buddy, I WONDER where ALL the money is and WHERE it's going BESIDES China and whatever other country we outsource jobs to.

 

Let's not forget the short amount of time where they had MORE money than our own government. Yes!

 

 

Ok my man...... I need you to do me a favor. Step out of the Matrix (Which is real) and get unplugged. China has more money than we do, and we gave it to them. They make 90% of what we consume. All those hundreds of millions of workers should be here. But the CEO's that are greedy, selfish, Godless etc., don't give a damn who makes the stuff.

 

-Take Note Garibaldi because you really need to step out of the box you live in!

 

What you airily dismiss as another "bash the rich" post from the OP is actually a post that lays out factually what a lot of us have been saying for a long time. Do you really believe that this is the way things should be? I find nothing wrong with a person trying to better his/her personal station in life but I don't believe you can ignore the obvious inequalties the article points out about the economic system this country has been operating under. Some of us operate under a belief in the "common good" while some of us operate under the " as long as I get mine" principle. I hope you're not among the latter.

 

Now, I must say that I have always loved reading your posts. They always seem to be right on time and pretty much sum things up. But that part in bold was sarcasm right???

 

And that's the thing. I don't know why people bother to go rounds with him and get into "heated" discussions when it comes to certain topics. He's going to get his, so you all better get yours!

 

Since when is it a crime to make more money than other people?

 

And what exactly do these protestors want? Do they want the government to tax the rich more and give these poor people who are doing nothing all day but lying down in a park free money?

 

 

Lord Help your soul. I chose not to even include the rest of your post because what I have to say in response to the above portion should do it.

 

How about this. Maybe..... Just maybe, they want the government to import 70 million jobs that have been exported to China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, ect.

 

Those jobs were once in...

Detroit at dozens of worldwide automotive suppliers

The Brooklyn waterfront industrial facilities

The garment district where real clothes are made

Seattle Boeing assembly lines

Ohio GE engine plants

Countless farms and in our country where healthy foods were once grown

 

What about them??? What about us??? What about America???

 

All the people who make it very clear that they are greedy and don't give a damn about our country or anyone in it are put into my "Terrorist Watch List Category."

 

Those are the people that are willing to sit around and watch this bitch go down in flames. LITERALLY!! - Revelations.... And do nothing about it!

 

Those types are unpatriotic, and contribute nothing positive to our nation, and are therefore terrorists in my opinion! i.e Bush and Family. Home grown terrorists are the ones we have to watch out for. We voted one in twice! Oh, wait... no we didn't.

 

End Rant.

[Tokkemon]

It's too bad Canada's federalist worldview won't work in America. Darned states mucking it up for everyone!

[Urbanfortitude]

It's too bad Canada's federalist worldview won't work in America. Darned states mucking it up for everyone!

 

People here are easily frightened by big words.

[lilbluefoxie]

Step out of the Matrix (Which is real) and get unplugged.

 

:eek: since when is the matrix real, it was a movie.

[East New York]

:eek: since when is the matrix real, it was a movie.

 

The concept of the movie is real, not the actual actions of it. The "system" has the global population believing this are a certain way because that's how things should be. However, this is an illusion.

[SubwayGuy]

It's too bad Canada's federalist worldview won't work in America. Darned states mucking it up for everyone!

 

And the states vs. federal issue has long been an issue in this country.

 

The reason for having states owes to the settlement of this country, where different settlements had different rules based on the preferred ways of life there.

 

When the United States declared independence from Britain, it understood it needed to have some form of common government and national unity while still allowing for differences in lifestyle in the various states...and without telling those people how to behave. They could address national matters at that level, and the states could address state level issues.

 

This is why I hold that issues of lifestyle cannot be mandated at the federal level. Things like laws based off religion, etc. However, there are some things (economic, political, and international relations) which must be mandated at the federal level. But the federal government can't get into "lifestyle" type legislation, it's a slippery slope.

 

If the states were not there, the federal government would be even larger and have more power than it already does. I don't think that's a good thing when you only have 2 major political parties which basically both do the same thing to the 99% at the end of the day, and both of which are beholden to corporate money. Not saying the states are any less corrupt, but at least they're willing to fight the feds every once in a while on certain things (such as the "everyone must buy private healthcare or get fined" provision in the Obama healthcare bill - which I think is a joke)

[Tokkemon]

I was perchance in New York today and I went to Zuccotti to see what was really up. It felt like a time warp. It looked like the demonstrations from the late 60s and early 70s with all the hippies hopped up on drugs and sitting around in the streets because they had nothing better to do. There was no clear message, rather just a general feeling of being rich was bad and capitalism and corporations should vanish from the earth, but no one could give me a clear reason why, just that they were bad, a la the good ol' talking points media thing. When everyone's chanting "We are the 99%!", they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Some protest! I will not support these protesters.

[MTARegional Bus]

I was perchance in New York today and I went to Zuccotti to see what was really up. It felt like a time warp. It looked like the demonstrations from the late 60s and early 70s with all the hippies hopped up on drugs and sitting around in the streets because they had nothing better to do. There was no clear message, rather just a general feeling of being rich was bad and capitalism and corporations should vanish from the earth, but no one could give me a clear reason why, just that they were bad, a la the good ol' talking points media thing. When everyone's chanting "We are the 99%!", they don't know what they're talking about.

 

Some protest! I will not support these protesters.

 

From your point of view you see them as drug users, others are people that some lost there jobs,live savings and collage students in debt, that are trying to bring awareness to corporate Greed and why there is such a big gap between the Rich and middle class.

[Tokkemon]

Its not a POV, its what one sees with their own eyes. Sure, they may have lost their jobs or w.e, but when they're out there smoking pot all day long and chanting idiocies, I have no interest in supporting that.

 

One of my favorite scenes from "An American Carol" is where Leslie Nielson's character responds to his kid about what a protest is:

 

Kid: What's a demonstration?

 

Grandpa: Well it's when a bunch of students show how much they don't know by repeating it loudly.

[MTARegional Bus]

Its not a POV, its what one sees with their own eyes. Sure, they may have lost their jobs or w.e, but when they're out there smoking pot all day long and chanting idiocies, I have no interest in supporting that.

 

One of my favorite scenes from "An American Carol" is where Leslie Nielson's character responds to his kid about what a protest is:

 

Kid: What's a demonstration?

 

Grandpa: Well it's when a bunch of students show how much they don't know by repeating it loudly.

 

 

You don't have to support the pot smoker, Just like the tea party, you don't support ant-gay or racism but you support the massage of small government and less taxes.

 

 

As I said before, You find a bad apples in protesters, some who are lazy and stupid, others who have lost everything, trying spread awareness to save the future of this country, Man I love freedom of speech. :cool:

[Urbanfortitude]

Its not a POV, its what one sees with their own eyes. Sure, they may have lost their jobs or w.e, but when they're out there smoking pot all day long and chanting idiocies, I have no interest in supporting that.

 

One of my favorite scenes from "An American Carol" is where Leslie Nielson's character responds to his kid about what a protest is:

 

Kid: What's a demonstration?

 

Grandpa: Well it's when a bunch of students show how much they don't know by repeating it loudly.

 

Which is by all means subjective and becomes a point of view. From the start you've been against this protest with not even the slightest hint of trying to be open minded. So naturally you'd see it all as negativity when you actually went there.