"Occupy Wall Street"

If they believe in something, even if we are not sure what it is, good for them that they are out there saying so. Beats sitting behind a computer complaining to people who will join you in doing nothing to change anything. We don't need to agree with them or support their cause. I applaud that they have the freedom to do what they want, as long as they are not causing physical harm to anyone. Actually, looking at your list, I am upset about some of those things myself.

maja ✉
Oct '11

Too bad you think it's snarky, probably because I didn't say "oh my gosh I agree it is ridiculous." Not my fault you think I was personally attacking anyone. I was not. Despite your mentally spanking me, I still think they have the right to speak their mind. What you do for a living means nothing to my opinion of any person' right to publically gather and protest.

So maybe you are upset not to have your question answered? No, I dodn't think they are getting anything accomplished. Perhaps that is the only allowed respone. Now the thread is going your way?

By the way, I found your comment more snarky than you probably found mine.

maja ✉
Oct '11

I support this protest. I'd join them if I could get out of work.

MikeL ✉
Oct '11

There are a lot of unemployed/underemployed young folks. Good for them, where is their future? As long as they keep it non-violent, I see this as nothing but positive.

iJay ✉
Oct '11

I applaud them and might join them! Imagine if all the unemployed descended upon Wall Street? Bring it on!

ess ✉
Oct '11

blulinr, etc. though I agree that their messages - as far as I have been able to see via the news, seems a bit all over, one clear message is that they want JOBS, they aren't asking for things to be given to them, they are also protesting the 1% not being taxed fairly, they are protesting the corporations perceived lack of reciprocity... etc. those seem to be some clear messages, and are messages that seem to be shared by many across the nation (I am sure there is much more to their message, but as you said it is not a clear single message, and maybe it can't be)... I am glad they are there, stirs up questions and popular action seems to be the only route left to push our frozen, polarized government toward action

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

It could be that we are seeing the beginnings of a new social movement that has potential to significantly affect the social and economic structure of the country. Significant change always begins small - how can it be any other way? After all, movements cannot suddenly spring into being well, organized and structured, with a comprehensive list of demands.

I think that because this one is internet social media driven and covered by a 24-hr a day news organizations you are seeing the early messy part in great detail.

I believe it is a response to the continued concentration of wealth in very few at the top, the unfettered greed and lack of accountability for Wall Street firms, a number of large corporations and banks, long term continued joblessness, political gridlock, and so on.

You just cannot expect a protest against the above list of problems to start out as a coherent and organized movement with a rational list of demands. Probably never will. I personally see it as the start of a process rather than a protest that will dissipate after their "demands" are met.

Anyone who looks at this as a traditional protest movement will never understand.

Richard ✉
Oct '11

I'm still waiting for one of the protestors to put together enough ideas of WHY they are there to form a coherent sentence. Most barely seem to know why they are protesting. Brings to mind the famous movie "Rebel Without a Cause" where when Marlon Brando was asked "what are you rebelling against?" he replied "whadda you got?"

I'm all for protests. But have a clear & defined message. "We hate Wall Street" simply isn't good enough. When will the protests end? When their "demands" are met? What are their demands? Redistribution of wealth? Greater regulation on investment banking? WHAT?

Based on reports of passers by, perhaps they (the passers by) should "demand" the group take a shower, which by all reports, STINKS.

As far as the pepper spray stuff, don't break the law, we won't pepper spray you. The Tea Party protests have FAR MORE people, and to my knowledge, not one person has been pepper sprayed or arrested. The Tea Party protesters leave the scene as clean as they found it, they don't break the law, and they don't confront police. That's what a PEACEFUL protest is all about. If anything, I read about people who show up to protest the Tea Party protests getting arrested for disorderly conduct. One guy even got arrested for making death threats against people participating in a Tea Party. Sorry, I really can't take these people seriously.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Well said JeffersonRepub.

LV Mom
Oct '11

Here are just two whys --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPB9PyRnI0o&feature=share

trekster3 ✉
Oct '11

oopppss --- where's that delete option -- I meant this one::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7iJk2C9res&feature=share

trekster3 ✉
Oct '11

trekster...The guy in camo in that video was probably dishonorably discharged for smoking dope. Any new veteran can make over $2,000 per month while in college, and their tuition is paid in full as well. The post 9/11 GIBILL is very giving (whether for school or on the job training)...These people have no drive to conform to a working life. They want to smoke weed all day and have stuff handed to them. They smell because they don't take pride in themselves; hence why they are looking like slobs while asking for a job.

BrainisOccupied
Oct '11

Lot's of talking heads on this one. My gut feeling is that this protest is more about the 1%/99% division than anything else, the rest of the stuff just filler to describe their anger.

It reminds me of our discussions here in which we debate whether to use the government for forceful redistribution or to fundamentally change our government to get rid of existing laws that allow for the disparity in the first place.

Symptoms vs problems once again...

justintime ✉
Oct '11

On TV I saw one of the protesters holding up a sign that said: "End the Fed". I thought maybe that was either JeffersonRepub or JIT! :)

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

Also the protests are mostly geared to the 1% of Americans who have xxx% of our money and power.

CheekyLOL
Oct '11

Captiol is mobile. What no one discusses now is that in a global economy money will migrate to where every the best oppurtunity exists. I still believe that the best country to invest in is the USA, however, many other countries where they've in the past have raised taxes to onerous rates have seen the money leave the county. Should that happen hear, and it will if rates go high enough, the protestors along with many other Americans lose. Acess to capitol creates jobs and oppurtunity and a supportive business enviroment do the same. Penalize the private individual and watch the capitol flee.

Currently, it seems that many Americans besides being upset about not having jobs are still looking to the government to solve there problems. That isn't what America was founded on and we all need to remember that. What we have now is a moment in time where some fundamentally difficulat choices need to be made that will impact everyone.
Those protesting the solution seem more geared toward a government solution with government creating jobs, health care and the such. This model has been a disaster in Europe, particuarly Greece, so why would that be the answer.

Perhaps if government would get out of the way and stop spending money on stimilus, etc and honestly communicated that we are broke and need to right the ship before any accelaration in spending it would be a good wake up call for everyone.

Imagine ✉
Oct '11

typical jr ranting. you don't bother to learn the facts so you just start name calling. the protesters have issued their position on September 29, 2011. here it is.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

Actually, in my book, to be taken seriously you need to be proposing SOLUTIONS. Great...you don't like that you don't have a job. I can understand that. As a young person coming out of college in the mid-80's the economy wasn't in much better shape than it is now. I did eventually get a job making about half what some of my friends were, but it was a start.

So how are we going to end "corporate greed"? Regulate it? Create a government agency to oversee all corporate compensation? How much will income tax across the board have to go up to pay for that? Oh...you're going to use corporate taxes to fund it? Okay. How much less will your compensation be, or the how much more will you have to put in for your health insurance to cover that?
I'm not sure any of them have thought this through.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues with "Wall Street" and/or how big corporations are run, how their accounting is done, and how they compensate their leadership, but the folks out there with the "Police are the tools of the rich" signs I cannot take seriously.

JJB4 ✉
Oct '11

Now i was watching this to day the women screaning that they pepper sprayed her eyes as they were arresting her that was o cool and th police officers with there stick beating the protesters that was the best well to bad its off to jail you go lol 60 days hard labor

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

It's really pretty sickening.



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/06/kelly-protesters-to-be-met-with-force-if-they-target-officers/

“What they did is they counted. They actually had a countdown — 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 — they grouped together, they joined arms and they charged the police. They attacked the police. They wanted to get into Wall Street, they wanted to occupy Wall Street,” Kelly told reporters.

“Sanitation is a growing concern,” Brookfield said in a statement. “Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight. . . because the protestors refuse to cooperate. . .the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”

LV Mom
Oct '11

ah.... and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed!

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Richard:No where in my "free stuff" post did I include or exclude specific takers of "Free Stuff". Perhaps you have a bias or lost the theme of this thread.

The only difference between the "corporate agribusiness, oil companies, ethanol companies, and on and on and on.." is those folks are not out in public screaming for more "Free Stuff". They ask for it, but they are far more sneaky.

The focus of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street". If you would like to start a thread about the "Green" industry,the Auto manufacturers, or the recipients of BILLIONS of tax dollars in stimulus that didn't stimulate, let me know. I'm all too happy to include them as well.

Bottom Line: We now have more people (and industry) receiving "Free Stuff" than we have paying for it. This is a reality that is not sustainable. When it crumbles (and I fear that has started), the takers of the "free stuff" will be hurt the most, increasing unemployment is just the start. The best thing we can do, is convert "Free Stuff" takers into "Free Stuff" payers. This is a fact and it is indisputable.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

I'm just glad we don't live in China.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm

trekster3 ✉
Oct '11

PSU is spot on, too much 'free stuff' will be the death of us all. (and you all know it)


PBM - but the facts are correct, right? there are 'paid' prostesters of Hispanic origin being paid a salary to march with protest signs in Washington (and who knows where else)

this is correct , no matter what web site. the video doesn't lie

BrotherDog ✉
Oct '11

Jeff,

Even if it was true Jeff, how could you ever believe something given the quality of the reporting. I am not sure any of the sentences necessarily have anything to do with each other except proximity.

Sad fact-less, source-less reporting.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Jeff, you say: "Biased? The guy ADMITTED to paying protestors. No bias involved. Just his confession."

Now I am not taking a stand here one way or the other, but your article:

1. Does not have the journalistic minimum number of sources to be authenic.
2. Uses one unamed, unconfirmed source with no coraboration.
3. Refers to payment of "some" protestors falsely leading to the conclusion that more are paid than unpaid.
4. Another article extended this one's premise to say that this is a typical liberal tactic.

Remember, the group was 10-people and the unamed source said some were paid --- not a scathing indictment by any means any way.

But here's a little more responsible reporting by, believe it or not, Fox: "

"If you think I'm going to ask impoverished Latinos out of work, and out of luck, to parade for four hours under a broiling sun ... think again," Jim McGrath, chairman of the D.C. Tenants Advocacy Coalition, told FoxNews.com.

McGrath was responding to claims first made in the Daily Caller. According to the Daily Caller, about 10 Hispanic protesters were seen marching behind a protest organizer on Thursday, some holding signs in English. The report said they gave conflicting accounts about why they were there but that the protest organizer conceded some of them were not volunteers.

McGrath, who was apparently the organizer interviewed for the piece, told FoxNews.com the claim was "100 percent inaccurate."

"They were volunteers. We don't have anything other than volunteers," he said.

He nevertheless made the distinction that he paid the apparent volunteer workers out of his own pocket, because he wanted to compensate them.
=======================

Not sure what the distinction was, also not sure when the payment or offer of payment was made. In any extent, not exactly a conspiracy at any level and while the DailyCaller may have be close, it was, on its own merit, a very shoddy piece of journalism.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

After going to their website and reading a list of demands they have lost all credibility with me, I would not even entertain their ideas. They are living in a world devoid of all reality, they want all debt forgiveness, free health insurance, free college tuition and an end to all fossil fuel usage and advance forward the green agenda, even though any of the so called "energy alternative" does not exist to the point where it is a viable energy source. They want to tell the country "to wake up" Yeah, sure. If anyone needs a wake up call, it's those people!

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

"Even if it were true how can you believe...."

We live in crazy times and now, even IF things are true, we have a large portion of people who don't want to believe.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

And HERE is where mg's article lost credibility for me:
"How, in other words, will we be able to close the huge looming gap between the taxes we are scheduled to pay and the services we are scheduled to receive?

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups."

WHY do none of these left-wing sources EVER offer up SPENDING REDUCTION instead of, or at least in addition to, tax raises? REDUCE SPENDING. When the govt has the integrity to do that, to show us that they ACTUALLY care about the "people", THEN we can entertain talk of tax raises. Not before.

CUT SPENDING CUT SPENDING CUT SPENDING. How many times do we (and S&P) have to say it? How many more times will our credit have to be downgraded? How much higher will unemployment have to go? How much lower will the stock market have to go? How much higher will gold have to go? WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE? Vince Flynn's novel Term Limits to become reality? (God forbid.)

CUT SPENDING.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

I thought I saw an "occupy Washington" on thursday... a bunch of hippie-looking youngsters standing around outside Wells Fargo in Washington. They weren't there when I went by today, maybe they all got jobs... lol

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Occupy Wall Street isn't so much as a protest telling the government what do it's just asking for change. We can't keep spending the way we are if we don't have every pay taxes relative to their wealth. Just because someone makes money on capitol gains instead of income doesn't mean they don't deserve to be taxed. We don't tax the rich because they supposedly make jobs. But that's obviously not working. So the government needs to spend to create the jobs. If the government suddenly stops spending like some people want then any chance we have of creating a trusted market for the rich to create jobs in is lost. Making jokes about the protesters not having jobs is just plain disgusting. They're fighting for a cause they believe in, not a job.

RyanS ✉
Oct '11

Jeff, I don't know if you know anyone who is presently out of work. I know several, at differing levels of experience and the jobs are few and far between. I may be misreading you, but your comments seem to imply that folks are out there choosing to be unemployed. Those that I know are desperately looking for work. One friend, after TWELVE months of continual job seeking, just found a close-to-minimum wage, temporary job that he is hoping to parlay into a more permanent position - this represents a major pay cut for him, he may loose his house and the job offers no medical insurance. There are a lot of people out there struggling and none that I know of would choose to be in the position they are in.

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

I had a great day to day I went out and got some free stuff and then I went back and got some more I am happy and then I come on here and see all these Quotes from Dead guys people get over it they are Dead we are alive and getting free stuff is great , who cares if the rich get richer its there money to invest not mine , remember the stock holders need to be payed , stop out sorceing to other countrys why this way if forgen workers make it i get 25% on my dollar if american s make it i will only get 12 % on a dollar Power to the investor . tax me at a rate of what cause i make 300k plus go right ahead i will burrie you in your own tax loop holes LOL

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Please pmnsk, we ALL already pay for the common stuff. They use the roads? Sure, but so do we. Police, fire, etc. I guess that means the rest of us should pay more as well. Sorry, but that is really one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard.

You've just argued for what I've been arguing for: limited government.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

Justin, I am arguing that they should pay their fair share, not more or less. I am saying that we should eliminate all the tax loopholes and breaks that they are given.

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

PSU, I am not suggesting that those that have succeeded pay more than their fair share - I am suggesting that they pay their fair share - they have had undue influence over the political system and have garnered tax loop holes and "tax incentives", which over the past twelve years have failed to result in job creation as the argument in favor of these benefits claim. They have, instead, pocketed the difference while the middle and working class continue to pay higher percentage in taxes,. I am suggesting that these loop holes be eliminated such that all are paying their fair share. How do those that you know who are out of work feel about that? While those at the top of the economy, those who are in the position to aid economic development and have received tax incentives for twelve years with the stated aim of doing so.. have not done so. Something has to be done to move this frozen, polarized government and to me, a popular movement seems the only option left.

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

stated in another way... if you agreed to pay a painter to paint your house and they did not do so... would you continue to pay them?

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

Well, Jeff, it seems clear that you are NOT in the 1%, not receiving the FREE stuff, i.e., loopholes and incentives from the government....

and so on ✉
Oct '11

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/6/naomi_klein_protesters_are_seeking_change

MomOfGirls ✉
Oct '11

There is an Occupy Movement in every major city around the world by now. I saw an Occupy Taipei facebook group. There's an Occupy Jersey City, Occupy Newark, Occupy New Brunswick and an Occupy Trenton. It's just a matter of time before there's an Occupy Hackettstown. It's not going away. I wonder if some of the people complaining here about the stinky marxist hippies who have no message have any solutions that will actually work.

I think it's great they have no unified message. The Tea Party only has one message. The party line. Groupthink is so unhealthy. Without a diversity of opinion, like a diversity in your diet, the strength of any social movement will wither and die.

Saying "I'm waiting for one of them to come up with a message that makes sense" is idiotic. Not one of them is representative of the entire group. Every single one is an individual and speaks for themselves. There are laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. There are no laws protecting freedom to harass and slander.

Calling somebody a stinky loser is an ad hominem attack that is simply not productive. The people who call other people names are really the ones standing in the hall, blocking progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPODhU2dBjw

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

The Tea Party message is CUT SPENDING. SPEND LESS OF OUR FUTURE. Smaller govt would be nice too. Lower taxes. Become energy independent. And do what you say you're going to do. Hardly "one message".

And tell the Founding Fathers that "groupthink" is "so unhealthy."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

I just want them to pay their "fair share..."

President Obama has proposed tax increases for single filers who make $200K and Married filers at 250K.
If you live in Hackettstown and earn 200K, and add up all your taxes (fed. state. local. property. sales. etc) you are paying around 50% now. How much is fair?

It's easy to call for a "millionaires tax" but we all know there is no proposed legislation that raises taxes on just those earning 1 million or more. They can't support legislation that doesn't exist. (The Dem's didn't propose this tax when they were in control)

Sure it's easy to say "just close the loopholes". President Obama had 2 years with complete Democratic control to get that done. They didn't do it either. Now it's the "Stupid" Republicans fault? Now who is being unfair?

"Why does the house do nothing?" Good question. Should have asked that question before the Dems lost control. NOW, if you truly want changes, there will have to be agreement on spending cuts first. I don't see that as a bad thing.

You blame the Republicans for sticking to a pledge that got them elected. Politicians who keep their word are "stupid"? Please re-think that one. I'm pretty sure you don't want politicians to pledge one thing and then do the other...right?

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

I said the RepubliCANTs who signed the Norquist pledge are stupid for locking themself into a static response in a dyanamic world. Till the end of time. You are right; now that they signed it to get the money to get elected, they can't take back a signed document. And they forgot to read the fine print that told them that closing a loophole is really a tax increase and therefore not allowed by the "pledge."

If governing was as easy as signing a bunch of pledges, they wouldn't have to go to DC at all ---- they could just phone it in based on predefined pledges.

And the last Democratic Congress was one of the most productive in history; you may not agree with the product, but produce they did. The only bills this House passes are ones the Senate already told them it won't pass and then the House says, see --- it's those guys. And nothing gets done. Nothing. Nothing.

I guess they signed a pledge against compromise, deal making, finding common ground, along with the one thing they all agree with ---- do whatever it takes to make Obama lose the next election no matter what happens to American in the meantime.

If we had more John Boehners and less Eric Cantwells, we'd be moving forward.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

"And the last Democratic Congress was one of the most productive in history;"

During that congress, the USA ran up more debt than any two years in the history of our country. Sounds like you are happy with the product.

So in summary: You want politicians to break their commitment IF it suits your politics AND you really like the largest two year increase in national debt in the history of the country along with significant unemployment.

Now, protesters camp out on Wall Street because we haven't spent enough?

I rest my case :-)

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

There will be no more middle class! ( At the rate it's going ) There are NO WORDS...that will Fix It! Period!.... tRhere is No More Power today.. The people have Had Enough!


The RICH........$$$$$$$$$$$$$
.......................
........................... ( No In Between )
..............................
................................and the p o o r ( *-* )

embryodad ✉
Oct '11

embryodad has it right.

All these protesters probably think their demands will create some sort of utopia where it brings the poor UP to middle class & the rich down to middle class; when in fact, all it will do is drag the middle class down to the poor. There isn't enough money in the system for everyone to be rich, so every time "leveling the playing field" or "making things fair" is mentioned, what that actually means is bringing EVERYONE down to the lowest common denominator. That's all that can be afforded... that's the only way the system can work with the amount of money available and the amount of people present. Oh it'll be fair alright- everyone will be poor and the politicians (and anyone who's "with them", like unions as just one example) will remain rich.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

pmnsk, if you quote somebody almost verbatim you should probably give that person due credit even if the thought is ridiculous.

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”- Elizabeth Warren

As for these "occupy" groups, this is what happens to a nation when you put a community organizer in charge. This is all he knows. Foster division, angst, resentment, envy among the people. Convince people that they are the victims of their fellow citizens.

This administration and the big government liberals know full well that their days are numbered unless they can accomplish something radical. Their policies and ideas are obvious failures so the only option is to sow discord and try to avert blame.

I believe this president has the potential to be a very dangerous individual. It's possible he will try to keep his power by any means possible. Do we really want to live in the kind of society where every day is overshadowed by protests and jealousy and pitting one citizen against another? We need to reexamine ourselves and reject the divisions and mayhem that this president and his allies are trying to create in order to keep their power.

RJ ✉
Oct '11

RJ said
"This administration and the big government liberals know full well that their days are numbered unless they can accomplish something radical."

Exactly. That's the terrifying part. They are trying to push us beyond the point of no return: the point where we won't be able to turn back the govt, and will have to become part of a new world order (no, I'm not conspiracy theorist) similar to what the EU is now, except it will be global. All one needs to look at for even a LITTLE bit of evidence is American courts sighting INTERNATIONAL law in DOMESTIC cases and the UN trying to apply more gun control to the US. The US firearms laws is none of the UNs business. I've said it before, the UN is evil. Get them the hell out of the US & stop paying for them!!

I've heard whispers of the current administration considering a way to suspend elections. (like a huge terrorist attack on American soil, requiring Marshall Law). Again, I'm no conspiracy theorist, and it is hard to believe because that has NEVER been done in the US, I don't believe. Not even during WWII. Personally, if something like that is tried, I think that would be the tipping point for Americans to begin exercising their FULL 2nd Amendment rights. Extremely scary to even think about.

Saying this administration (an Obama is just a pawn in this game) is dangerous is an understatement.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Both right and wrong IMO trekster3.

Yes, we are to blame. But just buying "union" isn't the answer either. Take the next step and recognize that *competition* in the market place is what truly brings down prices. Unions are the antipathy of free markets and competition. Prevailing wage laws stem from Union influence, and what a ridiculous notion they are. How in the world is it in the best interest of the taxpayer to pay a $90/hr wage rather than the $30 that your average Joe taxpayer would work for?

You know, there is ONE thing that we could all do that's very easy to break the back of those in power today and that would make a HUGE difference: switch banks. No more Citi, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America. Put them out of business by voting with our wallets, then see how things change in our Congress.

So yes, vote with your wallet.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

I wounder who is paying for the up keep issues that the Occupy wall street movement is causeing for trash removal ,medical care . and the impact on the space that they are camped out on and what it will cost to repair this area who foots that bill I thinke they need to pass the hat around to all thoses people

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

I found one so far.



http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/675411/colorado_secretary_of_state_bars_overseas_soldiers_from_voting/

PBM ✉
Oct '11

PBM,

I remember that stuff when it happened the last election. It's no theory. But I have heard whispers of finding a way to SUSPEND the election... that would be unprecedented. I don't think americans would take kindly to being told they wouldn't be able to vote for their presidential choice, because the election had been "suspended until further notice."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

jr and rj spreading the fear in tandem now. bravo. 'i've heard whispers...but i'm no conspiracy theorist'?!? give me a break. if i wanted to hear those whispers i'd find that waste of bandwidth that beck has been banished to. President Obama will stay President by being re-elected, and the tp will get flushed now that their fascist policies have been exposed.
as for occupy wall street, they sure have started a conversation that the plutocrats never wanted to be started, especially not in such a public way. interesting twist over the weekend - many religious leaders came to the protest to point out that Jesus teachings' of social responsibility fit right in with the what is being protested- 'you can't serve both God and mammon'.Matthew 6:24

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

JR and RJ --- bound together in going off the deeeep end. Break out the tin foil hats boys, the aliens are coming and you just know they are liberal.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Spreading fear? Hardly. Mrgoogle is scared. Scared of what exactly? Fear God, not man.

However, I do think there is cause for concern when a president, or any leader of a nation, begins to isolate a specific group of people and label them as the cause of all our problems. Where have we seen this happen throughout history and what have been the consequences?

This obsession with painting the "rich", or "millionaires and billionaires" or corporations as the enemy, or standing in solidarity with those who do, is not beneficial. And all of it is simply to divert attention and blame from the failed policies and ideology of the left.

I would simply rather have a president who builds up the nation rather than divide and tear down and pit one against another. Maybe I'm in the minority. Maybe most people like to live among constant conflict and anger. Who knows?

RJ ✉
Oct '11

There is no comparison to the Tea Party protests and OWS protests.

Tea partiers have never linked arms and charged police officers. They have never defecated on a police vehicle and they have never left piles of garbage behind.

OWS has already cost NY close to two million in police overtime, they are unsanitary, they expect the taxpayers to clean up their mess. They have done more harm and no good.
And they wonder why no one will hire them.....

LV Mom
Oct '11

Oh, and LV Mom, don't worry your pretty little head about the OT for NYC Police... JP Morgan Chase "donated" 4.6 million to th NYC Police Foundation. That should cover it...

MomOfGirls ✉
Oct '11

@ JeffersonRepub

["Oh it'll be fair alright- everyone will be poor and the politicians (and anyone who's "with them", like unions as just one example) will remain rich."]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Right J Repub!

Why is that so difficult for people to see.
It is easy for the Government to control the people if they are poor.
It is very easy to attract the poor to Government System Control......But only one thing..
Remember.."Don't let them take our Guns!"
There is No Power Of tHe People without G U N S !!!...

That,..... one can Carve in Stone.

embryodad ✉
Oct '11

"Oh, and LV Mom, don't worry your pretty little head about the OT for NYC Police... JP Morgan Chase "donated" 4.6 million to th NYC Police Foundation. That should cover it..."

Good for JP Morgan. The NYPD are going to need it!

and how did you know I had a pretty little head?:)

LV Mom
Oct '11

PSU: I really did not defend anyone; I just corrected your error when you stated Obama added more debt in two years than any other 2 years in history. Bush added more debt in two years than Obama. There's your "any other time in history." So if your point was being wrong, sure I proved it but that really wasn't my point. Get the point?

Reagan raised the deficit in two years, by percentage, than any other two years in history.

Just thought you would like to be correct when you make your "two-year" statements.

For those counting, for the one year "who spent the most," again Bush wins for the single year highest spending rate ever. Numbers are printed above PSU if you want to check my math....:>)

And yes, for deficit hall of fame records, that would be liberals - 1, conservatives - 2. But you are right, it is all bad. And for putting a dent in the deficit and leaving revenues in the coffer, again, of course that would be Bill Clintion --- the best President ever.

If you are gonna tag someone as being the worst ever in history, get the right guy next time.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Comparing the "occupy" protesters to the Tea Party protestors only shows supreme ignorance; as stated above, Tea Partiers did not defecate on police vehicles, charge police, have sex in open view of everyone, leave the place filthy...

It's laughable. The left SO hopes this "occupy" movement will somehow balance the Tea Party movement, it's such a joke. Most of the American people aren't impressed with the "occupy" protesters, because we know what they are really all about. That will always be liberal/progressivism chink in the armor: as soon as they reveal themselves ("end capitalism", "bring down the stock market", "tax the rich"), it will always be their downfall. They try to hide, first by calling themselves "progressives" (instead of communists), then when people realize what a progressive is, they change their label to "liberal", then when that label gets dirtied by the truth of what it is, they try to go back to "progressive." We're not stupid. This isn't Europe. It's AMERICA. We are made of different stuff than the rest of the world (ote I did not say we are "better". I said "different"). We believe in GOD-given rights and individual liberties and small government.

So even tho the "occupy" protests are going into their 4th week, they WILL end... because their demands CANNOT be met, because they are ridiculous. People won't take them seriously (altho the mainstream media will try to convince us to) because we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. As Herman Cain said, they are "anti-American."

Besides, before too much longer they will have to be shut down for health code violations, if they still aren't taking showers, are still crapping on police vehicles, and still leaving the god-awful mess they are. Any people that have so little respect for public property as to turn it into a cesspool of stink & garbage, have no respect from me, or from most Americans.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

mg,

The fact that you believe Bill Clinton to be the greatest president IN HISTORY, is all we need to know about you to know your are a lost cause.

(for the record, I don't think Clinton was a terrible president, I think he played it safe, he was blessed with a peacetime administration, and he didn't do too much damage while there...altho Hillarycare would have been. He was sort of a "nothing" president. He went on MYV and played saxophone. Cooool.)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Well, I had popped onto the forum to see what was going on locally. Big mistake reading this thread, though I love that this finally proved what I've always suspected about some of you :)

MomOfGirls ✉
Oct '11

Need some Blue Army Tanks to roll over that way and some speedy dry and some porta pots

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Something has bothered me for a long time. I hear so much talk about the 2nd. amendment and Obama taking your guns away. Where do people get that idea from?

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

PBM ✉
Oct '11

Mr. G.
Are you saying you are against an increase in government spending?

Are you saying you support an increase in government spending?

On one hand you are unhappy about the spending under Bush.
On the other hand you are happy and defend the spending under Obama.
Which is it?

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

How can a gun protect if it's main purpose is to kill, injure, or maim? Also the textbooks provided by public education are one of the most fair and balanced sources of information available. So I don't understand that random post at all.
But the Occupy Wall St protesters are in no way "un-american". They're peacefully protesting and assembling. They're standing up for something they believe in. We can argue all we want on whether those beliefs are the proper ones, but personally attacking them and calling them names is just disrespectful.

RyanS ✉
Oct '11

Okay reality I was attempting to get away from debating the actual numbers because it's not the point but to move this forward...
The total public Debt: (in millions to save a few zero's)
2009 $11,909,829
2011 $14,790,340
Total Increase in 2 years = $2,880,511
I can find no other 2 year period in history that increased the total debt by a greater amount. This why I said that congress added more to the national debt than any other in history. Here is the actual copy and paste from my post: "During that congress, the USA ran up more debt than any two years in the history of our country." Based on these numbers I got the right congress. I did not blame a "guy" it was the congress during those 2 years.

BUT you can argue BUSH or Regan was a bigger spender...You can say Clinton was the best (others would say it was Gingrich and the Republican controlled congress) I don't care. (why do you?)

The issue remains...Should the U.S government continue spending as they are?
Tax increases will never cover the spending.

President Obama and the protesters on Wall Street and you say YES. Raise taxes on those earning (Single filers) 200K and (Joint filers) 250K and spend even more.

I simply disagree and it seems most of the independent voters are leaning the same way.

Your last post seemed as though you are getting frustrated with a desire to "get the right guy". So I'm going to leave this as my last on this thread.

Remember your waitresses and bartenders....they are working for living and don't have time to Occupy Wall Street. As Ronald Reagan said, the best way to fight the recession is to get a job. Even you can't disagree with that.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

"How can a gun protect if it's main purpose is to kill, injure, or maim? "

Your information is incorrect, therefore your conclusion is incorrect. Thousands of crimes per year are PREVENTED by the mere brandishing of a firearm. It is the best deterrent one can have. The police can't protect you, they can only investigate your wife's rape and your family's murder after the fact. If you eve want to get serious about learning about firearms, how they are used to prevent crime, and how useful they can be without firing a shot, put up a post and we'll talk.

"Also the textbooks provided by public education are one of the most fair and balanced sources of information available. "

Sorry, this is just laughable. I won't get into it on this thread because it's way too off topic, this again is a thread unto itself. Revisionist and exclusionary history are being taught in the public school systems, because the books are written by left/liberal/progressives with a political agenda. This is not conspiracy, it's a widely-debated topic. Again, if you really want to investigate the issue, all you have to do is some googling.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Perhaps I am missing something - if so, please clarify, I don't see anything in the occupy wall street protests that argue for more FREE stuff, most of what I have seen argues for more WORK...

also, "GE provides much more to america" to what are you referring? Their business that we pay for?..

gotta agree with the idea that text books are not the "best" source of information, just one of many..,

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

"I always say to people, “No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.” People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. “Earn” means work, okay? It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you steal them." --Fran Lebowitz

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

PSU -- the last two years of Bush outspent Obama by a fraction as I noted above. Bush also spent more in one year than anyone else. And remember, Bush chose to spend most of that money overseas, a lot of it in a war against something that wasn't there. Obama was saddled with those wars but chose to spend the additional money at home, on Americans. We can debate the merit of that, but suffice it to say it did not cure the problem and now between the two of them (Bush/Obama) we are in the debt toilet. But it is not just Obama and I am not sure he could instantly change the trajectory Bush has sent, but again, that's another debate.

PSU --- RealityCheck is right, I did not take a stand, but if I did I would say spending on Americans is better than spending in Iraq for that War. But in either case, the answer to whether to spend or not is: it depends. It depends on the needs of the people, the program, the expected outcome, and the curent environment. Which is why I say the Republicants signing of a rigid pledge in a dynamic changing world is stupid.

Before I explain, first let me say I agree that the DEFICIT must be reduced which, at this point, means spending must be cut. Big time. I also agree that selected taxes need to be raised to be fair again, and tax loopholes need to be closed. This probably means that corporate marginal tax rates can be lowered since corporate tax loopholes take the currently high marginal rate and reduce the actual paid effective rate toward the lower middle of the world pack of developing nations. Remember ---- at one level taxes are a competitive advantage if assessed correctly and spent effectively and efficiently. Entitlements also need to be addressed and re-engineered. So, targeted tax reforms including indvidual increases, corporate tax decreases and closure of loopholes, cut spending, and re-engineer entitlements.

Most liberals are in the center, especially Clintonian Democrats, and agree to the above as does Obama.

Here's where the rub is: while the Democrats will do something on all three, the Republicants won't touch taxes so therefore won't do anything --- no compromise, just deadlock. Welcome to the Republicant House and governing by the pledge (perhaps they should have read it before signing).

Now -- that said, stand taken, on to spending and "it depends." When we ran a deficit to build the Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam, the highway system, that was a good debt to run up. When we ran a deficit to win WWII, that was a good debt to run up. There are good debts to bet on and when we find one, we should spend, even if we need a loan (if the business case supports it via a reasonable ROI). Iraq spending however was not one of them, it was a very bad debt, much spent --- little return. And that led to us taking our eye off the Al Queda ball, letting Afghanistan lanquish and become our longest war ever ---- really bad spending. Obama's "re-engineering of Afghanistan looks to fail also, he should rethink it, but his atack on Al Queda, via drones, Seals, etc. --- very good spending, very efficient and effective.

Our deficit to support to military is good but way too high considering we spend as much as the next 15 countries ---- combined. We deploy an entire fleet to protect oil for the world and do not collect a cent. We have 7 uniform services and in an age when we can send a plane or a bomb anywhere, we have fleets stationed in Asia, the Middle East, etc. and men stationed --- everywhere.... We need to be safe, but this is waaaaaay over the top.

There are also government "spending" programs that can be deficit neutral. Social Security is also good spending --- here we take your money, save it, and give it back to you. If you die young, thanks for the gift. If you outlive the average, here's a gift as your reward. This program has provided dignity in retirement for millions of Americans and should be deficit'/spending neutral. Needs some re-engineering but is self-funded by you and I for some time in the future (I think 10 years at least, but don't hold me to that).

Medicare --- Same idea but because of out of control medical costs and increased life expectancy (due to medical costs), this good program has gone South and now is bad spending. Needs dramatic and drastic help.

And then there's stupid spending. Some Democrat, actually a smart female Congressperson, wants to save the Post Office by starting a marketing campaign to show the people the value of a letter. Ah..... email, texting, blogs.... This is like supporting canals after the last piece of the transcontinental railroad is laid. This would be stupid spending.

So there's good spending, bad spending, and good spending that needs to be re-engineered. There's also spending that can be deficit neutral if the programs at set up right with the right kind of firewalls. That brings me to Obama's jobs program. In principle (athough I suggest reading it to see what might be hidden. He is a politician) this programs taxes the uber rich, gives the money to small business and demands that they create new jobs with it. Sounds like deficit neutral spending for a good cause. Ryan says it's a "sugar high" like the Bush tax cuts which gives you a fast rush and then lets you down. Might be. Then again, if we keep kicking the economic engine over, perhaps it will sputter, maybe conk out, or maybe, just maybe -- it will start firing on all eight cylindars. Heck, we gave the rick the tax cut extention in 12/10 to create jobs, they didn't. Now here's their chance to really create some jobs. That sounds like good spending that does not increase the deficit.

So it depends on the program and the estimated outcome whether I agree that spending or deficit spending makes sense. Not some pre-ordained pledge of principles.

If we agree that taxes, spending and entitlements need to be address, I just wish Congress would do something....give something a try. I find Mitch McConnell's stance of his highest priority in Congress is to defeat Obama in 2012 to be a terrible choice. By 2012 we will have had 2 years of his actions to do just that which appears to be the art of doing nothing.

The government is the people, collecting money from the people to aggregate it and then spend it to enrich the lives of the people, hopefully at a profit, on things that the people (or corporations) can not do. Sometimes the government gets swayed by certain factions, sometimes it spends money foolishly. That does not make the "government for the people, by the people" concept bad and that does not make the concept of government spending bad. It depends.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

ok, so you guys are on here talking about '2nd amendment solutions' and pushing the false argument that guns save lives in our country that has the highest murder rate by guns in the western world, but according to you the 'real' violent people are the wall street protesters who blocked one lane of the brooklyn bridge? huh?
and jr's playing the liberal card again - do you belong to the john birch society? yet another staggering dislocation from reality. fyi, the texas school board is the single largest buyer of textbooks in the country. that makes their guidelines hugely influential because textbook publishers don't make multiple editions of the same book in order to keep costs low. that school board is packed with ultra conservatives. oops, another conspiracy out the window. i'm sure you'll have another soon.
rj, nowhere else in the industrialized world are wages so lopsided - the rest of the world is between 11:1 to 30:1. in your example the low wage earner is below the poverty level while the ceo is living comfortably. a generation ago in the US we too were at the 20:1 ratio and now just in the last decade alone the ratio has doubled again. not sure how you can't see this adding to the income inequality. as for the President, he has never said the rich or companies(in general) are evil as you said earlier, he said they need to pay their fair share and related to the wall street protest they need to be held accountable when they break the law.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

rc,

Texas is a PRIME example of the people trying to RECTIFY the problem of bad textbooks. They are trying to make sure the textbooks are "correct" and do not include revisionist history or opinion.

As for the guns issue, you need to do some serious home work. Check out the FBI studies:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/articles-memoranda-and-commentary/78-commentary/418.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

...and here's the actual study discussed in the 2nd link, straight from the source:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/december/crimestats_122109


More guns in the hands of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS = less crime.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

check:
"Spreading fear? Hardly. Mrgoogle is scared. Scared of what exactly? Fear God, not man.

However, I do think there is cause for concern when a president, or any leader of a nation, begins to isolate a specific group of people and label them as the cause of all our problems. Where have we seen this happen throughout history and what have been the consequences?

This obsession with painting the "rich", or "millionaires and billionaires" or corporations as the enemy, or standing in solidarity with those who do, is not beneficial. And all of it is simply to divert attention and blame from the failed policies and ideology of the left.

I would simply rather have a president who builds up the nation rather than divide and tear down and pit one against another. Maybe I'm in the minority. Maybe most people like to live among constant conflict and anger. Who knows?
RJ RJ Message RJ
22 hours ago · report?"

enemy....evil...etc. but thanks for having me look back at those posts. i posted 475% in that post when the statistic is that ceo's earnings are 475:1, 475 times the amount of the average worker. in your example of the below poverty level worker making $20,000 the ceo is taking in$9,500,000. maybe now you see a great disparity. this is what needs to be addressed. when the average worker is having benefits cut, public services slashed, healthcare costs soaring, gas prices rising, no cost of living wage increases, etc, they are not earning a living wage, and it's not because cor[porations don't have the money to do so, it is because they are lavishing a ridiculously inordinate and steadily increasing amount of money, as shown in hard numbers above, on a few top executives to the detriment of the rest of the workers in the company. the way to address this is to force it into the light with large and public demonstrations. oh, someone already thought of that.

jr, the revisionism is taking the books away from apolitical to ultra conservative political books, and while you may like that, it is not a correction of past liberalism, it is a clear attempt to make our classrooms and our history slanted to one political framework instead of being apolitical.
as for your gun rights bs i already completely displayed the lie behind the exact same links that you tried in another thread. like i said the other day, broken record of false statements.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

nice try jr. as i pointed out the last time you rolled out this lie, the fbi page says NOTHING about guns lowering the crime rate. not one word. nothing. nada. i do believe that the crime rate is falling. i don't believe the made up spin about gun ownership causing the rate to fall. and just to be clear, the fbi page says NOTHING to back up your false assertion that the crime rate has fallen because of gun ownership. actually, the worldwide statistics on violent crime have been falling for decades, yet most countries restrict guns much more than the US. kind of crushes your made up point.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

A quote from one of the above links, should anyone be interested enough to want to LEARN something about guns & gun control:

"The report is a 'smoking gun' in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns and the failure of gun control. Apparently anti-gun owner politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know the truth as they campaign against the so-called 'gun show loophole'."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Since it looks like this thread has taken a hard left, let me attempt to bring it back to center. The main point of these protests is to try to hold "Wall Street" accountable for the widespread mortgage fraud. The banks received a bail out and their CEO's went on vacation. The consumer has been left to rot with absolutely no feasible means of recovery. Added to that: massive cut backs ie, no jobs. Our own government is suing Deutsche Bank, among others, for FRAUD. The will be no economic recovery until those who fuel it see justice.

2Cents ✉
Oct '11

Gee. Haring JeffRepublicant call me bad makes me feel soooooo goooood.

Adjust that tin foil hat a little more to the right since only you could jump from OWS protestors to your right to bear arms.

Personally, I prefer a full sleeve with cuffs myself.

Actually I don't really fear a JeffPub with guns since most of the time he is only half-cocked anyway.

ba dum bump. cupcake please.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Ginger,
Your so called "robust" environmental regulations that you advocate for are exactly one of the problems with the current financial crisis. You don't see costs associated with these excessive regulations, from the EPA to the NJDEP. I believe that we should be responsible for the environment, but there comes a time when the burden is shifted to private industry to cover all these costs. The end result? loss of jobs! many companies can no longer stay in business when they are over regulated. the cost of required upgrades for power plants are passed on to you and me, the consumer. As far as solar energy and wind energy, get back to me when they actually can sustain our country with the power it needs, the technology is not there. Take a look at Solyndra, guess what? it's not working. We have no choice but to stay with fossil fuel power generation at this time and those are the industries that the federal and state governments are constantly harrassing with new and stricter regulations everyday. As I am a worker in this industry i see the end result of these regulations. i wish i had the time to explain things as they pertain to EPA and DEP regulations and the testing methods used in their measurement data, I can only say that the current testing methods they use are responsible for more pollution than the industry would generate on a normal day. they force power plants to test at 100% capacity of the plant, or as close as they can get to it. Most plants DO NOT nor will they ever operate at max capacity. this data is used to skew the numbers to advance the so called "green agenda" If they wanted a true and clear picture as to what was actually happening they would require you run at an average plant load, this would prove what the true impact on the environment is, not what theoretically can be done. before you advocate for stricter environmental laws, question the Goverments motive. It may be lining the pockets of people such as Al Gore( yes ,he is one of those filthy rich people) that OWS is against and numerous other high ranking government officials that should also be targets of your protests, not just CEO's of wall street firms! If you are truly serious about change, I would not in anyway be affiliated with someone such as Keith Olbermann, he does nothing to advance your cause, in fact, he only hurts it.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

I just watched the video you posted a link to MomOfGirls. While I can understand the conclusion that after 50 years of zero bank failures or major crisis (I suspect that's not entirely true but I get the general idea) something changed which has caused the turmoil of late. However, the conclusion she comes to is rather partisan which means it's likely based more of divisiveness rather than actual fact.

If you've read any of my posts on the Federal Reserve you'll know that a major change happened in our economic system in 1971 - President Nixon removed the ties of our currency to gold due to problems that had been persistent in the previous decade. IOW, the last remnant of the gold standard was officially killed. Looking at just about any Federal Reserve monetary chart you'll see a dramatic change in how our monetary policy was carried out since that point. Here are a few examples:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CURRCIR?cid=32215
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBSL?cid=124
Now, it might not look like much but if you look closely at the scaling you'll see that around 1971 our monetary base was about $70B, about 10 times higher than 40 years prior. Today, 40 years later, our monetary base is about $2,700B or about 38 times higher. What's more alarming is the present rate of change IMO. Regardless, one thing that's undisputed is that the amount of money in our society has dramatically increased. If that money hasn't filtered down to us lowly peons (see the "It's the Inequality, Stupid" thread) then it must have made it's way somewhere else - the rich. So while everyone knows this, the 99% don't want to acknowledge how the money came into existence in the first place: our economic system and the Federal Reserve who implements policy.

Soooooo, I think that if more people start to look at the underlying system we're more likely to get to the root of the problem which is disparity.


Anyway, I think that we can only blame "business" in so much as we support

justintime ✉
Oct '11

And as it goes with the environment, so it goes with many other things. For a long time, we've operated as though what's good for business is good for America. But we've lost sight of the larger goal and allowed our priorities to become inverted.

Ultimately business exists to serve human needs. We don't exist to be subservient to business. And that's a large part of what this Occupy movement wants to talk about.

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

Ginger,
Start at 1600 pennsylvania ave, we do not exist to serve the government. they are there to serve us, perhaps your energy would be better focused on the Fed. These companies are employing people. subservient to business? what does that even mean? If I need a product in my life, i will buy it. So you propose we stop buying things? Look around your house, what have you bought throughout your lifetime? everything in your house at one time was manufactured by a company paying people to build that product. money that eventually went back into the economy. I am just trying to understand what the whole movement is about and what their solutions are? All I can see is alot of misdirected anger and turmoil.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

There are plenty of cases in which people can't make free choices about the purchase of goods and services under the existing system.

*People who work full-time, but can't afford to buy American-made products.
*People who'd choose small businesses over Wal-Mart if they could afford it.
*People who might choose fresher, healthier foods over processed ones, but find the former too expensive.

When I lived in upstate NY, I purchased my electricity from a cooperative. My supply came from 100% renewable sources and cost me no more than I was paying for coal-generated electricity from NYSEG. And believe me, I was amazed. I'd signed up expecting to pay more, because I felt it was the right thing to do. Here in NJ, I don't have that choice.

Cooperative grocery stores do similar things with healthy foods. Why aren't our elected officials working to encourage the development of businesses like these? (The notion of a 'free market' is a myth anyway, so intervening wouldn't be a departure.)

It seems like the "general welfare" has been politicized in order to protect entrenched interests, such that obviously positive solutions to common problems become mired in controversy. To my mind, that's why such broad swaths of our population have become disillusioned with politics as usual.

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

100% renewable sources, huh? So in other words, you bought your electricity from a trash burning power plant? that burns plastics,wood, sludge, and anything else that was tossed in the garbage? what was the renewable resource that they told you? If it was a trash burner, do you think that it gives off less harmful emissions than burning coal? You're just getting rid of your trash and turning it into energy, it actually pollutes more than coal. But alas... the coal industry can not compete anymore because it is strangled by regulation.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

LVMom if you believe in the American way so much then you should believe that a life is an unalienable right and if you were to maim, injure, or kill a person (no matter the reason) you just destroyed that right. If guns were illegal and nearly impossible to get the violent crime rate would fall faster then we could even imagine. And America was built on the basis that the British began enforcing anti-smuggling laws and levying tarriffs/taxes half of what homeland British payed. America actually was founded by people who wanted everything to be given to them for free.

JeffersonRepublican yes the Texans are geniuses. I mean obviously intelligent design is the real truth and evolution is such a revisionist history ideal that holds no hold merit in true ideals. The textbooks and education you receive in New Jersey are/is some of the most fair and unbiased you can have anywhere. Also I mean obviously prayer sessions in public schools really help the learning experience in Texas.

RyanS ✉
Oct '11

I am all for your vision, I work full time, drive a Buick,shop at rockaway sales(hometown hardware, It will always be Rockaway sales to me) unless they don't have what I need, then it's off to lowes or HD. I try to buy produce at farm stands, but the season is only so long, then it's off to Weiss or shop-rite. I would shop downtown, but I am really not into antiques. I bought my furniture, washer, dryer from the trading post, although I suspect that the owner made alot more than his employees(staggering income inequality) Does he fall into that category? See my point? sometimes you have to get what you need regardless of where it comes from. Something my mother always told was that "no one said life was fair". Wage stagnation? I can always use a raise, but I am employed, have healthcare for me and my family, and it was'nt always this way. No one gave it to me, I had to work my way up, I just have a problem with people that want something for nothing. This seems to be coming more and more from this OWS protests, unless your cause is getting hijacked by some unsavory people or the lunatic fringe the message is getting misconstrued. I don't see a focus or any real ideas, just alot of blamestorming.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

Gee bluliner, if we let you test to 50% of maximum capacity, will you promise not to take it higher? Will you give us your solemn word? Put an unbreakable governor in at 50% and I am sure they would let you test to the new maximum.

Solyndra is exactly the reason we need to CAREFULLY invest in alternative energy. Indeed it was a case of a bad loan of quick money for Presidential PR purposes to a bunch of scammers, but that incident should not deter us from our mission to reduce America's foreign energy dependence. And since most countries in the world have the same self-serving mission, sounds like a good market to be the high technology world leader. I have made lots of money investing in solar, it works, it pays, it pays back. Of course, my money is invested in China, the overwhelming world leader in solar panels with contacts from Germany to Italy to....the city of Houston. I have reaped about 15% ROI this year alone. That's $15 for every $100 I have invested. And I have three months left to make one more profit. Last year was much better. In a bit of a slump right now given changing world policies so looks interesting to get in low right now.

Best thing Nixon ever did was get us from the gold standared to a modified float. Now if we had the daring to go free float that would be something. As far as M1 expanding (how do you measure that), that's a good thing too as long as the rate is comensurate with value of the dollar. As far as the current expansion, yes, I agree --- too much, too fast. And more scary yet, so where's the inflation? That part really bothers me, scary times for sure.

Too much regulation. Need specifics and the 100% test thing ain't it. We need efficient and effective requlation, without it we get ----- well, Wall Street derivatives, Three Mile Island, Gulf Oil spill, and the housing crisis. I like my child car seats safe, my airplane up to code, my water clean, my food unspoiled, my neighbors house not pink poka dots. Some level of regulation is needed to protect us, well again, from the likes of each other. Not to mention the souless, ownerless, inhuman corporations where you can't even pin it on a human after they reap unspeakable horrors. And it seems the bigger the disaster, the smaller the jail time. So keep the good regs and toss the bad ones out.

Meanwhile, let's find some humans and put them in jail. The track record is slim, the sentences are getting heavier, but the actual time served in country club jails is fractional to the sentence: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2009/03/12/where-they/

And mostly for financial fraud, not for violations like:

Exxon Valdez --- 1,000 hours community service
Gulf Oil Spill --- nothing
Housing crisis --- nothing
Gulf of Mexico pesticide dead zone --- nothing
Great Pacific garbage dump ---- nothing
WV Sludge Spill --- nothing
Love Canal ---- nothing
Banking System Collapse --- nothing

To be honest, sometimes there were fines like the Valdez skipper coughed up $50K but mostly, even with regualtions, we do not prosecute corporate safety violations of these huge magnatudes. Imagine if we stopped all regulation.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

BOA is having financial problems and is using the Dodd/Frank bill to leverage additional Debit Card margin. Others banks are testing service charges but none have made a decision so there's still time to vote. Vote with your feet.

The issue is a previous usage charge of 41 cents per swipe that the govt has mandated to be capped at 21 cents.

Usage revenues have double over the past 4 years representing $20 billion. That's a $10B increase in 4 years. Sweet for the banks.

But BOA's stock is in the toilet, they will go negative this year, are taking one time charges dumping additional costs to look even worse, have high interest payments --- basically a Wachovia in search of a Well Fargo...

Bottom line --- drop BOA and pick up Hope Kasasa (stupid name, great program). If you do three things each month 1. use debit card ten times 2. use electronic statements and 3. make one auto payment or deposit (pay a bill with auto draft), you get 3% interest on your checking (cool) and up to $25 in ATM refunds for using non-Hope ATMs.

They have not announced any changes or charges...yet.

Cool.

There's plenty of banks able to survive on 21 cents per swipe and looking to grow their Debit Card / Checking business. Ally Bank (Old GM financing arm turned maverick internet bank) just opened checking and they are top notch to deal with for example.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

I agree, try something, measure, fine tune or try something else. The President has come up with some interesting ideas (stimulus, tax break extension for the rich, now the jobs bill (rob from the rich, give to small business to create jobs, deficit neutral) AND he is willing to compromise (see debt debacle when he offered a number of compromises).

I would like to see all work together and to see this Congress do something.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Ryan,
America was founded by people who wanted everything for free? really? What text book did you read that in? Principle, not price was the objection in the colonies, objections to the way british judges wielded their power in the colonies was the 2nd biggest problem for the colonists, no trial by jury. People did'nt want everything for free, they wanted the right to govern themselves and to judged by their peers as they were in Britain.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

Just curious - what are teachers and teacher unions doing at these protests. What do they have to do with Wall Street. I think it is all a bit much and don't know what they exactly want out of these protests. If anyone feels our government and our system isn't working for them - leave. I am sure they can find a "better place to live where all their demands will be met." Yeah, right! Our government should not have to take care of all the needs of it's people. Too many handouts already. Who is going to pay for the police overtime needed for these protests? Guess who! I don't think it is fair to over-tax the wealthy in order to put money into the coffers to pay for those who don't have. We should all be responsible for our own.

LM1 ✉
Oct '11

Bluliner: Did I say you said I said you said something about you desiring an end to all regulations? I did say: imagine if there were no regulations but don't think you did. I did.

With regard to testing pollution at 50 or 100%, you favorite peeve, I do not know whether pollution at different capacities is a linear function or not so I can't say. Can you? But if not, then testing at the average of 50% would mean that the actual range of potential pollution is far greater perhaps both at the low end and high end of the ranges. So that would not work. If not linear, I could see testing at the high end of the range, but not the average as you desire.

Also, unless there is a gaurantee that the upper end of the range won't be pierced, then I guess the only safe place to test is 100%. Do the power companies gaurantee a peak output number? Given the trends over the past few years, I tend to doubt it. They don't seem to be able to estimate much of anything except surprise.

Back to the topic: OWS ---- I am sad to say thay I think only a liberal bias press would not cover NYC OWS rain effect. My national news went to San Fran where it was bright, sunny, and the tie dyes were out in full bloom protesting. Since everyone wanted to know the rain effect --- I was not satisfied with this coverage which I though sought to extend the story for another 15 minutes.

Did anyone hear how yesterday went in NYC?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Jeffrepub,
have to agree with everything you say, I think this OWS protests are purposely generated by the left, their answer to the tea party. It seems to have their fingerprints all over it, alot of talk,bluster and no real solutions. Why else would someone like Pelosi,brian williams, michael moore and the left wing media treat it as a "historic movement" everything they do seems to be a "historic movement". They came down on the tea party movement and tried to discredit it as a passing fad with no real merit to their arguments. Why? because they are dangerous and a serious threat to their agenda, and they knew that, and if they did'nt, they sure know it know!

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

I'm just sad the 'American' corporations need to be coerced into moving manufacturing jobs back to the good old USA --- their actions have been overwhelmingly Un-American, not in the aspect of capitalism (because it is pure Capitalism), but in the perspective of being a Patriotism --- what they have done is entirely Un-Patriotic.....

trekster3 ✉
Oct '11

Honestly trekster, I'm surprised more large corporations haven't moved out of the US.
Boeing is being sued by the NRLB for opening a production plant in a right to work state, now that is un-American.

LV Resident too
Oct '11

NJ gave 80 million in tax cuts to Goya in order to keep their 100 jobs here - they promised to add 60 more jobs..... EIGHTY million for 60 new jobs... I know their are other benefits, but really - between state and federal tax incentives for big corporations - really makes you wonder btw, Star Ledger made the supposition that the big companies are squeezing the states by playing one against the other to see where they can reap the biggest deals....

and so on ✉
Oct '11

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” --Mahatma Gandhi

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

We're lazy, stupid, dirty, too idealistic...blah, blah, blah. The demonstrators have heard it all before. Only it sounds thinner and less relevant now that we've decided to stand up for ourselves and stand together.

Seriously, it takes more than a few brain cells to successfully occupy a park in the most heavily policed neighborhood on Earth post-9/11.

There are two exceptionally democratic General Assemblies held each day, through which the occupiers govern themselves and their space. Go visit one. See what people power really looks like.

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

"Seriously, it takes more than a few brain cells to successfully occupy a park in the most heavily policed neighborhood on Earth post-9/11."

Sorry, don't see the logic here. They are camping out and living under very unsanitary conditions in a public park. Yeah, real geniuses there!

LV Mom
Oct '11

OK do you think that they will exit the property peaceful like or do you think they will need to be forced off , Being the property is not public property ?
I think is going to be a big fight at dawn

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

MG,
Maybe not behind it, but look at the support being thrown at it. These are the people I thought the OWS was against? Tim Robbins, susan Sarandon, Yoko ono, Alec Baldwin. The whole cast of usual s--t stirrers that never pass up an opportunity to sow discord among the average american. You really think George Soros is not involved also? And you talk about the Koch bros. fanning the flames? Media coverage from the usual Lib media is treating it as a "historic moment". Did the tea party get this kind of coverage? I happen to agree that there is a big disparity between CEO's and the American worker, political graft is rampant in all forms of government and we are being taken for a ride by our gov't. Repub and democrats alike. I don't see any legitamacy to their method, half the interviews i have seen they can't even tell you why the hell they are there. One thing is for sure though, I see alot of trouble coming when they are evicted from the parks and can no longer set up camp.

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

MG,
sure glad you posted that article on the movements funding. George Soros denies any connection? that is a relief! Now I am true believer!

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

CLEANUP POSTPONED!!! Breaking News!!! The Stink Continues!!!! Hippies Rejoice!!

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

looks like the powers that be in charge have no grit its time to pack up go home clean up and come back another day

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Veterans for Peace have had large, highly visible presences at both Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Boston.

And then there's this, from a couple of weeks ago...

""Calling all Military Veterans of Reddit. We took an oath to protect the people and the constitution of the United States of America. Meet me at Wall Street."

"I'm heading up there tonight in my dress blues. So far, 15 of my fellow marine buddies are meeting me there, also in Uniform. I want to send the following message to Wall St. and Congress: I didn't fight for Wall St. I fought for America. Now it's Congress' turn. My true hope, though is that we Veterans can act as the first line of defense between the police and the protester. If they want to get some protesters so they can mace them, they will have to get through the F[]ing Marine Corp first...

... A formation will be held tonight at 10PM...."

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kwtjl/calling_all_military_veterans_of_reddit_we_took/

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

I was downtown yesterday for business and passed the park, the situation was pretty disgusting. I have never seen a larger collection of dirtbags, mistfits and people waiting for their next handout.

It is pretty much a perfect poster for what the progressives see and want as the future of America all in one scene.

I know I will be lambasted for this comments but that is what is there, my days of being politically correct are long gone.

Mark

Mark ✉
Oct '11

mark, it 's a protest not a starbucks. it may be messy but i thank God for those who are willing to make sacrifices to put the plutocrats feet to the fire. good work and God bless!

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

@Ginger_NWNJPA
IS this the Oath you took please read ( AREAS )



Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting

(for a term of service into any branch of the military.)

The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that
(I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)
So help me God.


@Ginger_NWNJPA
thus if you go there know your oath was up held till the day you mustered out and thus you were relived of your oath and if you go there and your active service your breaking the oath because you were not ordered to do so

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Gee Jeff, I have not a problem thanking the military; read my threads. It is just that the hippie movement brought us and saved a number of freedoms that we enjoy today.

Mark et al: I am not sure there's a big request for hand-outs from these protestors, there appears to be more generalizing by the people on the sidelines about handouts. Although there was one guy with a "absolve my college loan" sign who said, "hey, why not. thought I'd give it a shot..."

Justy: if the shoe fits... :>) I kin jus feel da luv.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Well said bluelinr. The Tea Party does it's confrontations at the BALLOT BOX. And successfully I might add. No mace, no feces, no urine, no garbage, no stink, no arrests. But RESULTS.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

The military has protected us from external (for the most part) enemies. If you think about various internal outrages, such as Jim Crow laws, there is no doubt that protesters have contributed to freedoms also. (Not to say that this particular protest will be beneficial; don't know,)

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

That's because most police are tea partiers (kidding..:>)

But seriously folks, there has been violence, use of racial slurs, spitting on Congressmen, signs advocating gun play ----> a number of sporadic bad acts perpetrated by the Tea Partiers as well as some random fights undetermined as to instigation by TPs or opponents.

All of these acts, whether by the 99% or by the TPers are wrong but at this point I don't think any of them and indictive of a movement that advocates violence or bad behavior.

And some of my favorite hippies are veterans of a different era too :>)

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

GInger, your last post screams "END CAPITALISM." Until this movement comes up with some reasonable, doable, objectives, I'm afraid all it's ever going to be is press coverage.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Have they started burning bras yet?

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

"reasonable standard" of work to attain the American dream means what? That If I work 10X harder than you on a job we split the pay 50/50? somehow I think I am at a serious disadvantage in your dream! So why should I bust my a$$ if we make the same amount? Without a capitalist system in place you remove all initiative to make a better product, to advance in life, to earn more money, to make a comfortable life. I have had lousy jobs in my life, believe me. My focus was not on what the boss was making, though at times I did envy what he had attained, but I knew I could eventually get what I wanted or more aptly, what I needed, there is a huge difference between wants and needs. So you really lose me when you say a "reasonable standard of qualification" for the american dream. How do we make that distinction? where is that line? Do CEO's of major corps make a ton of money? absolutely! so do professional athletes,doctors, lawyers, actors and actresses. Just don't expect these people to give up what they have earned because you have set your sights on the "reasonable standard" of your working performance, and nothing more.....

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

Victoria secrets stock jump up at the word of Bra burning yes power to the people

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Tomorrow PETA is there if anyone is interested. I am not sure this should be called anything but a disturbance at this point.

Steve-0 ✉
Oct '11

End the Private Federal Reserve & our problems are over the next day!

They run your life & you don't even know it.

Watch this video & you may learn something about who really runs this country & once you understand its over for them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

RonPaul
Oct '11

Wall Street Protesters are in the wrong place. They should be protesting in Washington DC.
It was there where the nearly One Trillion (yes with a T) stimulus was approved.
It was there where the Wall Street bail out was approved.
It was there where Quantitative Easing (printing money)was approved.
It was there where the huge increase in the debt limit was approved with few spending cuts.
It was there where the 550 Billion (yes with a B) loan to Solyndra was approved.
It was there where 30.6 Billion was approved for "transportation infrastructure" and another 22 Billion in "miscellaneous infrastructure" funding was approved. Resulting in a loss of 931,000 jobs (15% decrease) in the construction industry since Feb. 2009.

It seems like the protesters are not happy with the "change" they thought they were voting for.
Here is a quote from Barack Obama in 2006. (Pretty different than the BO from August 2011):
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

Matter of fact, in the past, I have marched on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue shuting down traffic (when you could drive there before the terror walls were put in place) and playing frisbee in the Street. Matter of fact, I took a pretty good nightstick there when I first stepped off the curb, ouch. But later, undaunted, I stepped in and we played frisbee on Penn Ave right in front of the Whitehouse.

Blu: I don't see anything in that statement that says end capitalism; you put that there.

And if you work 10X harder, you should make around 10X more. And if you work smarter.....no I won't say it....:>) , if you work smarter, even more.

It's when you work 10x harder to make less that tends to make folks frustrated. Or when you give up 40% of your work to taxes and basic necessities of life (roof, heat, food, etc.) while some rich guy gives up 20% for the same that can make one frustrated.

And today, especially for young kids, the American dream gets hazier and hazier. Not only harder to obtain a job, but salaries are depressed, commondities are inflated, the dollar buys less (ask Justy, it's true). It is much harder for these young folks than it was for you and I. And it was pretty darned hard for us.

So people are delaying getting married; more folks live with Mom n Dad; education is deferred. I don't know that you have noticed it; but this is a great recession closer to the depression than any other recession we have had.

Thank goodness Bush and Obama made some moves to blunt the effect, but it is deep and it is still on us with a passion and all they could do is blunt it. So, technically the recession is over yet all the bad effects on jobs still remain. American business is floating (won't say rebounded, but these guys are good and have done a good job weathering the storm), the banking system, love it or not, is back (perhaps unfairly so), and now we just need to kick it up a notch and get that American work machine moving again. And while I believe in capitalism, while I believe in merciless competition (but fair); we all could use some of that good time American feelin that Ron Reagan brought to office. Plus his tax code revolution. Just don't need the Reganomics, had those during the last guy's reign.

These kids frustration is a symptom of our times, and they are right that what we need to do is avoid the mutual contempt that is tearing us apart. We need to create opportunties, not sit around yelling at eat other. We need to try things, not do nothing. Congress should lead the way and should start doing something together, to do something, to try something. Last week they defeated the Jobs bill and then moved on to vote on Abortion rights ---- yeah, that will bring us together and create jobs.... Nice priorities boys n girls, nice priorities.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Freedom Watch needs to watch closer:

Stimulus was not nearly 1T; it was $800B (unless $200B is a rounding error) of which $564B was stimulus and $236B was tax cuts. You agin tax cuts too? Here's where it went: http://frankellis.hubpages.com/hub/Stimulus-Amount

Debt ceiling increase (this latest one) was $3T with about $2.5T in cuts; however cuts take place over time.

Solyndra was not $550B, that's $550M with an M: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html

You need to google the numbers, you are not even close but we get the idea.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Justin, I do not understand the economics of it all, but read your posts with interest and increasing knowledge - thank you. MG - I agree, it is up to those elected to demonstrate maturity and competence - but that hasn't happened and doesn't seem imminent. THAT's what I protest (in my own quiet little way.)

pmnsk ✉
Oct '11

No joke. And I fault Pelosi for saving up years of venom and unleashing it just like the Bush crowd did 8 years eariler. She could have supported Obama and taken the high road setting the standard for teamwork ---- but nooooooo. And then Harry Reid, gosh bless him, is well meaning but ineffectual and down right dangerous when under stress. So they had it, Obama was leading, and they threw it all away pushing their own agenda and 8-years of revenge.

Now we have the Tea Party, the high principled, do-nothings who only know my way or the highway and who are willing to damn the country, fire the torpedo's who are worse than Pelosi n Reid ---- they do nothing at all. Again, Obama handed it to them with the debt ceiling debacle and they said ----- "nah, not good enough. You want one thing we don't so fuhgit about it..."

And sad to say, Obama has not been able to get either herd of cats to move forward on behalf of the American people. He's a thinker not a leader. Makes you want to put on the tie dye, paint a sign and hit the street!!!!1

HAGWE

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

The following was promised and did not happen. The protesters should be in Washington. The president / congress didn't deliver and the folks protesting have had enough. This list is focused on the economic promises. I believe the protesters have a long list of social "changes" that haven't happened as well.

"I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV. If you're headed for a cliff, you have to change direction. That's what the American people called for in November, and that's what we intend to deliver."
Barack Obama
The spending didn't change and the President is out campaigning for more!

"It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent."
Barack Obama
Fundamentally, they are still waiting for change. Responsibility for every dollar! Did some one say 550 Million?

"In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them."
Barack Obama
Tax code is unchanged.

"When I'm president, we'll work to see that no retiree making less than $50,000 each year has to pay income tax."
Barack Obama
No such tax break for seniors has been passed

"I will provide a new temporary tax credit to companies that add jobs here in the United States. During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired."
Barack Obama
2009 and 2010 have come and gone. And since it was "temporary" IF it happened it would be over any way.

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

FW:

I think you can fault Obama for not herding the cats on either side of the isle but not necessarily for his ideas or actions.

The Dems, Pelosi and Reid, as I noted above, let him and his voters down and he could not control them.

The Tea Party Republicans are do nothings that he can not control; McConnell is evil and Bohner, like Obama, can not command his party to compromise or to work together for the good of the American people.

Justy: Yes, a decrease in the increase is an oxymoron if ever there were one. Hopefully, we can at least get the budget to a point where the spending cuts actually get us to a balanced budget or better. We are at limit and need to address the deficit if even just a tad just to show a directional change, an attitude change. Time for smart spending, not over spending.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Yeah, the federal tax thing bugs me about Cain, as does the fact that he cites Alan Greenspan as a "good model" to look to to fix the economy. Being a former member of the fed doesn't make me happy either.

But I do think we need something as bold in the OPPOSITE direction of the current administration as possible- it's the only way to right the ship. Cain is at least one of the most conservative candidates. Personally, I like Santorum, but he's to new/young to be electable. I like Newt, he's brilliant, but his political past makes him not electable, not a prez anyway. Perry & Romney aren't bold enough... they'll slow the car down a bit, but won't turn it around. Huntsmann can just go home now. Bachmann...I like Bachmann, but I don't see her as ready for the presidency, nor do I think she's electable as such. That leaves Cain & Paul.

I love Paul's domestic policy. His foreign policy, however, will end up getting us all killed. It's dangerous. That immediately disqualifies him for me.

That pretty much leaves Cain, at least for now. Frankly, I'm not happy with any of the candidates 100%, which is normal. Just have to wait and see how all these debates play out.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

The problem I have with Cain is that he just tipped his hand in the last debate and outright lied in a response to a question. This tells me that he's just more of the same, but trying harder to be accepted.

That leaves Paul.

We've taken our chances by electing over and over again those who tell us one thing but do the exact opposite (the current President included). With Paul you know exactly where you stand.

The only saving grace is that the President only controls the Executive Branch, or at least that's supposed to be the case, so if you're worried about a President Paul I don't really believe you need to be concerned. He's ONE person in a sea of lying, manipulating politicians. Do you really think he'd be able to do as much as he'd like? No, I doubt it very much.

What a President Paul would do, though, is bring a completely different approach to the table. Isn't this what every single person wants, something different than what we've had?

Fear of the unknown shouldn't trump fear of the known because Lord knows that the "known" is pretty darn scary all by itself.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

As far as president Paul no having much effect: when it comes to foreign policy, I beg to differ. The president nominates the sec of state & sec of defense, no? If Paul puts like-minded people in those positions, it would not be a good thing.

(and he would probably get people he wanted for these positions, as sec state and sec defense are rarely contested by the Senate... making them, in effect, appointments.)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

I know this is one area where you and I disagree JR, but if I'm correct about other things we'll have no choice but to scale back our empire regardless of who's President. Math is math, and the way our system is setup (debt required to pay off debt) we're pretty much done for anyway. Of course I have no idea how long it could take (could be soon if the right trigger appears) but without a change in the system the laws of mathematics will dictate our actions. I'd rather be in control of the outcome than not, which is why I find a President Paul very appealing.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

We do agree on all that, JIT. And certainly Paul would be better than Obama. I always hope for the "ideal" candidate, or as close to it as possible, and Paul unfortunately isn't it. But still- anybody but Obama, and that includes Paul.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Ginger,

That vid was great. However, if this is what the "occupy" protesters believe & want to change, I'm afraid their methods & locations are wrong. The only way to change the system in the way that guy indicated is to ELECT people to the govt, both congress & president, who are "Mr Smith". As in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. I'm all for it. And believe it or not, that is exactly what the Tea Party did in the last elections. So there may very well be some common ground there. But a grass roots effort or education & getting people to the polls is what works, not protests... you can't force a dirty politician to change his ways. All you can do is REPLACE that politician. That is the way our system was designed to work, and that's exactly what the Tea Party did. And that was just the first round. You will see more TP candidates elected to office next time around.

The "occupy" movements biggest problem is their blanket "anti-business"/anti-capitalist standing. Without profits, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs. You can't have the federal govt employ everyone. And you can't tax the rich to "pay for everybody" because there isn't that much money in the system.

Also, they have an image problem:

Tea Party: clean, polite, no arrests, no violence, no problems. Results at election time.

Occupy: filthy, stinking, defecating, urinating, garbage-leaving, anti-capitalist hippies who, whether they realize it or not, are dangerously close to communists. This image will never survive in this country.


If the vid in the link you posted is the #1 concern of the Occupy movement, you've got alot of TP'ers on your side, whether you like it or not. But you guys have GOT to do something about your methods. Trying to threaten the current powers that are doing all this corrupt stuff will NOT get you results. Those people cannot be rehabilitated. The must be REPLACED.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Well, we could start with campaign finance reform, IMO that's a huge problem.Too many loopholes in the system. The gov't spending habits are the problem, it is unsustainable, even if you raise taxes on billionaires,millionaires,upper class, middle and lower class. I think there will be some shocking news coming out about this whole movement in the coming weeks, who is financing it and who is behind the original surge. there will be alot more to it than meets the eye, alot more involved than ever thought before. I could be wrong, but I am really starting to doubt it.

MG btw, re-read my post, I did'nt say "end capatalism" anywhere in my post. I do make 10X more than I ever have, because I have worked 10X harder, not because I wanted what someone else has gained through their labors. Alot of the protesters are very young, kind of tough to arrive at any conclusion as to what the rest of your life is going to be like, how well you are going to do in your career or personal life. Sometimes it just comes down to being a defeatest, and unfortunately, that's what I am seeing. Sad.....

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

That's my point. You see a mob of foks against the system that has benefited your hard work; others see folks frustrated at a stacked deck, people making it without working hard, and looking for a level playing field and an opportunity to excel.

And yes, there are hard working folks on Wall Street, there are lazy bums looking for a free ride and a good time amongst the protestors.

There are behinds the scenes funders, there are funded detractors as well.

I agree with Caged about needing Congress to work, to do something, to try something, to get us out of the deepest recession since the depression rather than just doing anything to get anyone but Obama elected in 2012. T-minus 12.5 months to take some action, any action, a modicum of action. And I agree that the protestors should 1. organize, 2. clean up and leave, and 3. take it to another actvist level as an organized party like the Tea Party.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Agree with Mr. Google, protesters need an "exit plan".

Funny, American cities lack the central "market square" common in many foreign cities, where protesters typically set up shop, as we've recently seen in Cairo, Beijing, etc. That's why they are crammed into that dinky little park on Liberty Street in NY.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

"Ron Paul may be outside the mainstream, but he's collecting a lot of cash from the military and high-tech industries:"

Ginger, the link you provided links to another link explaining where the data came from:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/include/contribmethod_pop.php

In 2008 (the year that data was obtained) Ron Paul only received $18,332 from PAC donations which means the majority of donations listed at your link are NOT from a PAC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00005906&cycle=2008

Anyway, if you read the sub-link you'll see that all individuals who donate must provide their employer name and that if enough people from a particular "employer" donated they were aggregated into their list. The point is that it was likely NOT the organizations themselves that donated to his campaign but rather the sum of *individuals* that were required to provide their company name at the time of donation who did. I'll admit, though, that I have no idea how to find out the actual contributions from corporations...

BTW, if you look at that link I posted above you'll see why Ron Paul is so popular: 99% of his 2008 contributions (or about $34 million) came from *INDIVIDUAL* donations.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

Qustion
what happens when the public get tired of the protesters occupying the public space ?
it seem that every one only feels they have the right to protest there cause so thus we have the right to protest your use of the public space so whos pro test has more vilidity public space is for the public all the public so move on now

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

JeffersonRepub, yes crazy enough there are places where OWS and the TP agree. That's why you'll see, among other things, a few 'Don't Tread on Me' flags and Ron Paul supporters at the demonstrations.

I'd say a major point of divergence, so far, is this: Many OWSers view the consolidation of private economic power--most notably in the form of transnational corporations that operate outside the boundaries of national laws--as dangerous in equal proportion to the consolidation of state power. Because it identifies government as the problem, the Tea Party advocates solutions that would allow corporations to increase their power at the expense of the people. Ideally a government by, for, and of the people should act as a check to restrain these forces. But it's not doing so right now.

That said, no one speaks for the OWS as a whole. It's truly a leaderless movement dedicated to engaging citizens in dialogue with *one another* about how we resist the short-sighted profiteering that's decimating our economy, our people, and our planet.

P.S. As Jon Stewart, of all people, recently pointed out, the original Tea Party was a massive act of civil disobedience in protest of an unjust law. Far more radical, subversive, and messy than camping out in a NYC park.

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

If by "capitalism" you mean the ability to make money off by money by squeezing it out of the paychecks of the people who actually do the work, if you mean siphoning off so much of it that you begin to obliterate the middle class, perhaps that kind of "capitalism" ought to be something less than absolutely sacred.

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

By "capitalism", I personally, mean the ability to earn a profit, pay my employees what the MARKET dictates (not the govt), and being allowed to earn that profit without tax rates and mandatory healthcare plans (as well as other regulations), that choke business to the point of bankruptcy. As I stated, the federal govt can't employ everyone. They can't support everyone either. Hell, they can't support ANYONE without business, because without business there are no jobs, and without jobs there is no tax revenue. What is so hard to understand about that?

That being said, PURE Capitalism can definitely go in a bad direction, just like pure anything. PURE capitalism, for example, would require the anti-trust laws of Teddy Roosevelt be repealed. I think the anti-trust laws are a good thing. A little regulation can be a good thing... business DO need to pay taxes on profits (let's start with GE), but not taxes so oppressive as to make it pointless to even stay in business.

Campaign finance reform. As far as *I* am concerned, even being a capitalist, it's just common sense to me to prohibit corporations from making political donations in any way, shape, or form. Get rid of it. BUT- also get rid of lobbies. ALL of them. PETA, NRA, GM, GE, Planned Parenthood, ALL of them. make lobbying a federal offense punishable with jail time.

The problem is, protests will not make any of that happen. As I have stated before, the ONLY way to effect change that actually bites the hand that feeds politicians is to REPLACE THE POLITICIANS. You will never be able to make them vote a rod against themselves. The only way to get term limits and many other things that are needed, are to educate the people so that they vote in people who believe what they believe, and are willing to go to DC and vote a rod against themselves. The OWS movement has not yet progressed to let level of reasonable intelligence yet. The TP was that right out of the gate. And they will continue to be a force, getting people elected who will go to DC and do what they are TOLD.

OWS needs to stop demanding things/behavior from the govt, and instead start replacing those people in govt who will not tow the line. Take a lesson from the TP. And for God's sake, throw off that support being given by the Communist & Nazi parties! Don't be STUPID.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Here's a good read about just what the public thinks of the Occupy Movement.
http://www.indypendent.org/2011/10/17/167-mil-support-ows/

MomOfGirls ✉
Oct '11

A military man in action at OWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys&feature=colike

I feel badly for the police officers just trying to do their job and keep the peace.

LV Mom
Oct '11

JD2 - ah, Central Park...;>)

Ginger: I meant exit the park, not create an exit plan, not exit the movement and had some other thoughts as well. So feel free to have your opinion, I will have mine thank you very much.

Are you saying all corporate campaign donations are bad but individual ones are good? Because coporations can not contribute, by law, to candidates. What you listed corporate PAC money which is actually individual's dollars not the corporation, right church, wrong pew in that a Corporation may start a PAC, but the contributions are individual and candidate selection are up to the PAC bylaws or selction committee. They are the individual's voice from the corporation.

For the corporate dollars that "put Obama over the top" whatever that means, bear in mind that most PACs contribute some amount to all parties. The same or similar financial institutions PACs funded McCain too: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424. Pretty standard stuff to contribute to all parties at some level.

And numerically speaking, Obama's PAC money, which is from individuals, was well under 10% of his total funding, hardly over the top in anyone's book.

Not that I am for PACs, but I do like to understand the process and it certainly is not exactly corporate funding and it definently did not put Obama over the top in 2008. And I think 527's deserve more of your ire in this regard. As of the 2004 election, there is much more chance of collusion between candidates, corporations, and bad-bad-bad individuals at the 527 level.

Keep that idealism going. As a former dangerous transnational corporate consolidator of private economic power operating outside the boundaries of national laws, I have to admit that try and I might, I could not conform to US laws in other countries ---- they just didn't like it. What????

Lady Jayne --- Child of the 70's and protests.... They were getting pretty darn weak by the mid 70's. I think you were a child of the late 60's myself (just like me)! :>)

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Imagine what our country could be like if our politicians weren't bought by the highest bidder? Our economy, our environment, our children's schools - we need to get money out of our democracy. Add your name to this petition if you agree: http://www.getmoneyout.com

from the website..."It’s time to get things done and finally get money out of politics. Our Washington insider Jimmy Williams is now preparing a Constitutional amendment to get big money from special interests out of our political system. We all know that they buy access and influence through campaign contributions, and benefit from the big payoffs (examples: Wall Street, health care, banking) and, of course, provide a lucrative revolving door to soften the blow when elected officials leave office."

All politicians, Democrats & Republicans, are the puppets of corporations. American citizens have no voice. The only way to stop this is to take the money out of politics. Does anyone disagree?

mermaid ✉
Oct '11

They are playing a good game. Why should the protesters reveal their hand? Why should they let their (ultimate) enemies know their plan? As of now, their target is the "rich" who made money from nothing.

I feel for the young out of college. Most are worried about many things including healthcare, saving for a home for their family, etc. Meanwhile, the legions of illegals are here and are not overly worried (unless you are in Alabama). They get sick, they get pregnant, they just show up at hospitals and clinics and ultimately they are treated; no worries.

We can't keep our doors wide open and more and more folks will keep coming here illegally. Time to treat real citizens (born here to parents that are legal) with more respect, and in turn demand more from them. Give and take...

iJay ✉
Oct '11

BrotherDog,
Your post is correct and to the point. The big money goes to politicians that will support legislation that benefits the industry represented by the PAC. It doesn't matter which side of the isle (republican or democrat), as long as they pledge their vote.

What's a little unusual this time around, is we have a president who campaigned on a very strong platform of change. This was from his "stump" speech that was said over and over again. It was trumpeted frequently on the Network's during the campaign. Cable news played it over and over again:

"It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent." Barack Obama.

Turns out this president is no different than any other politician. Read that last sentence again about a new sense of responsiblity for evey dollar spent and look at the cozy relationship his administration has will Wall Street. VERY Disappointing.

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

Freedom Watch: I agree, he is a politician and he is trying to do his thing as a politician. And he promised elsewise: hope n change. Most people believed him but he showed he was a politician during the campaign as soon as he appointed Biden.

Something to watch for as we march foward.

Meanwhile the Tea Party, as anti-politician politicians promised ideology above progress and have delivered exactly that. They get nothing done. Nothing.

Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader, a true politician only believes "anyone but Obama" and every action he takes forwards that goal. Says what he does, does what he says and yet, how can that be good for Americans.

Not sure which is better but suggest that we mark the man by his actions not by his words whether politician or not. I mark Obama by his actions and he is still the better choice, for me.

Look up Frank Wolf, RepubliCAN Congressman from Virginia since 1981. Here's a fine example of a man, a true politician, and a man I think a lot of us could follow. He did not sign the Norquist pledge based on principle. He wants lower taxes and changes to the entitlements and I bet I would agree with his suggested changes. If more Republicans and Democrats could stop the ideology, think about the issues, and have a meeting of the minds as to solutions to be tried like Wolf ---- I think we could move forward.

Here's a backgrounder but catch some of his recent interviews: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wolf

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

@PBM
"The rich keep getting richer"

now explane this statement of yours

are you saying that its wrong to have money "funds"
for people who have money to invest and to let there money work for them
OR
are you saying that people who have money that cheat the system and use there money at the expence of others

what is it your trying to say

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Jeff --- Doing nothing does not stop the spending and it certainly does not lower the deficit, create jobs, etc.

We have real issues in American and until these boneheads on both sides of the isles learn the word consensus and come to it on our issues, they will keep thinking compromise is defeat and nothing will happen.

Doing nothing does not help, it hurts. Was that Jefferson's mantra?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

With regards to the interest "thing" Ginger references above, this is exactly how the FED works. Since it's inception. While I believe in capitalism, and do not think it is evil in & of itself, the FED was a bad idea from the beginning, imo.

This is a link to a review of the tv show Glenn Beck did on the fed awhile back. The link also REVIEWS that show, saying it wasn't 100% accurate, but that it was a major step forward in informing people what the fed is & how it works. A very interesting read (the review) and a very interesting watch (the video.)

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/glenn-beck-and-the-federal-reserve

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

I like this picture. LOL

Christine ✉
Oct '11

Ginger, have you read the "It's the Inequality, Stupid" thread yet?

http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/268434

justintime ✉
Oct '11

Mr. G.
You don't like the republicans and the tea party and that's okay. You have made that clear, you are entitled to your vote.

But you criticize the republicans for sticking to their campaign promise. You don't have to agree with the promise, if fact you can hate the promise, but you have to respect them for sticking to the promise they made

Still you choose President Obama for your vote. There are others on the left who are more trustworthy and deserve your support.

It was President Obama's promise and 2 years of Democratic control in the congress that left financial reform off the table. In fact I see a pretty "cozy" relationship with Wall Street and a man who knows if he pushes reform he will lose significant campaign contributions.....very difficult to respect that.

Like it or not, President Obama left his political supporters out in rain on Wall Street. To his supporters, he is a significant disappointment and man who lacks the character to represent them. You may not like what the Tea Party stands for, but I wish President Obama had the same conviction to his beliefs.

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

Freedom Watch:

I don't like the Tea Party although I admire their organization. I don't like a number of Republicans, especially McConnell, but have praised others including Mr. Wolf right on this thread. I have also lambasted Peloisi, smeared Reid for similar behaviors. But it is the words, behaviors, and actions I don't like, not the individual.

I criticize anyone who sticks to their campaign promise in light of new information that might change their stand or at least open it up for review. Bush Sr. raised taxes -- right thing, brave man, lost him the election. Obama as many have pointed out, made some promises, got handed an economic nuclear bomb, and reprioritzed. He is, and always has been, a politician. Both the far left and far right fault him for that.

I fault Obama for, as many knew, being inexperienced, getting ground up by his own party (Pelosi and Reid) and forced to play politics to get some things done and for not exactly always having the same priorities as perhaps you and I. But he is a smart man, he is experienced now, he makes many very good decisions, he has razor-focus on our enemies and is dealing with them while keeping us safe, and he listens and looks for consensus. Look how many actions he took to favor the right ---- tax extensions for the rich, debt ceiling consessions, and others ---- he has listened and he has opted to try some things that the right has desired. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has said only "my way or the highway..." So not Jack Kennedy charisma but at least capable of getting the job done on behalf of the common man. The common man.

The tax pledge is a stupid promise made to a man who lobbys for some of the worst offenders of Republican values. I fault anyone in government who signs a unilateral pledge that locks them in to idiotic positions like being a supporter tax loopholes. You don't govern by the pledge. You don't lead by prior dictate. You look at the issues, the facts, and make the best decisions based on the best information at the time. Can you imagine Apple being run by the pledge?

I was a Hillary supporter but actually am glad how things worked out. You mentioned Obama, cozy Wall Street and not doing anything. It was President Obama who got the largest financial reform in a few Presidency's passed. Perhaps later due to bad prioritzation but passed and now BAC is reacting to some of the changes to Debit Cards for example. You should review the bill.

I am a supporter of Obama (unless Hillary makes a run), he is not a significant disappointment, I like his consensus approach, he has had to work in a harsh economic environment that he, and others, underestimated, the Republicans have fielded a three ring Circus which fits the current dysfunction of Reagan's proud conservative party, a party now willing to cheer at, most recently, Cain's assertion that unemployment is the fault of the unemployed.....not hardly Reaganesque Hard times, mean mobs.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

MUST READ: Occupy Wall Street's 'Political Disobedience': http://nyti.ms/nBMleY

Ginger_NWNJPA ✉
Oct '11

mg,

So you like Obama's "consensus approach" huh? His "this is my jobs bill, stop dragging your feet and get it passed NOW, it doesn't need changing & I'm tired of waiting!" approach?

He's got his feet dug in EXACTLY like the TP representatives do. He's not willing to reach a consensus any more than they are. His way or the highway. TP's way or the highway. Right now, TP's winning.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Yea, the TPers are winning, nothing is happening, yea.....they're winning.

Obama has tried a lot of consensus, a lot of compromise. Sure, he said "pass my jobs bill," and he is more than willing to work it around. Just don't do anything and wait unitl the 2012 elections to see what happens. But they wouldn't even work it, take it to a vote, nothing. And so we wait.

The gang of whatever working the deficit reduction will get nowhere too. They can't move, the Republicans have signed the pledge and can't reach consensus with tax loophole reforms and so they won't do anything. And so we will take a meat cleaver and slash spending equally across the board ----- no consensus or thought to where the cuts should go whatsoever. Can't move.

Obama has always been willing to work the issues and since the mid term, he is a lot more willing. His willingness shows in his actions. Tax cut extensions for the wealthy. Debt ceiling offer. Willing to work entitlments as long as TPers willing to work tax loopholes. and much, much more.

Why do you think the far left is so up in arms?

It's just that there is no right center anymore. It's the mad mob at YOUR Presidential debates cheering for frying illegal immigrants, how many texans we can execute, leaving the uninsured to die in the gutter, booing a gay soldier ON DUTY in Iraq.

They have all signed the Norquist pledge. Do you know who this guy is? Mr. Norquist has had a tight relationship with Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff essentially laundered money through Norquist's group and Mr. Norquist knew it. He has an association and representation of terrorist financier and vocal Hamas supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi. He also is associated with terrorist financier Sami Al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He has lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae. He currently represents the Internet gambling industry. There's more but that's whose pledge the Republicans are supporting on principle. Think the gaming industry likes the pledge?

Come on man, we all know who is willing to work together and who isn't. McConnell, your man at the top in Congress, said it best ---- do anything to get Obama out in 2012. Now that's productive.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

"do anything to get Obama out in 2012. Now that's productive."

Yup- extremely productive in stopping us from sliding ever closer to socialism/marxism. Exactly right.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Now, for the REST OF THE STORY...

“Four out of every five Americans who would pay higher taxes are small business owners. That doesn’t sound like a jobs bill to me,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican.

The bill came much closer to seeing action, falling just three votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Ten Democrats joined with all Republicans in the chamber to try to advance the bill.
[hmm... democrats JOINING the REPUBLICANS? Veeery interesintg...]

President Obama earlier in the evening had threatened to veto the Republicans’ bill, decrying the $30 billion in discretionary spending cuts he would be forced to make to fund the $11 billion bill.
[so, once again, Obama wanted to spend more without cutting anything.]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who crafted Democrats’ strategy, lost three members of his caucus on the teachers bill. Afterwards, though, he focused on the GOP, which voted unanimously against his plan.
[more democrats abandoning the sinking ship. But of course it's all the republicans fault. uh-huh.]

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

misterg, your emotional, tear-jerk style is really getting OLD, although I'll admit is is about 1/10th of 1% better than your insult-everyone style (which, not surprisingly, is intended to needle at their emotions).

Obama is doing nothing but wanting to spend money for immediate relief. How many of those jobs will wind up being temporary because the funding will dry up? And if the money doesn't dry up (which I doubt), where will the continuous source of funding come from?

Once again, this is an immediate gratification plan that is intended to make us "feel good". No where in sight is a plan to deal with the underlying problems. Sigh.

See, this is the big problem today. Everything is EMOTIONAL. But one doesn't SOLVE problems by being emotional, you solve problems by being RATIONAL.

justintime ✉
Oct '11

jit - how come you only pick on mr. g for being emotional when jr is constantly name-calling and the only posts of his that come anywhere close to logical are so circular and insular that they do nothing to advance the discussion?

fyi, President Obama is the President of America, voted into office by Americans who wanted him to push harder than he has against the neo-cons; by Americans who have totally American ideals and a totally Constitutional vision of what they believe America should be. The vision jr has where he dictates what is and what is not American is fascism. Have a nice day.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

It's unfortunate that a president, any president, is expected to "fix" the economy.

If we had been running surpluses and had set aside an excess in a rainy-day fund, I would be all for stimulus spending to tide us over. But we didn't, and I have to reluctantly agree that more stimulus spending is wrong. I do think we should go back to the tax rates in effect in the 1990's for now, when the business owners paid more tax and somehow hired lots of people anyway.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

realitycheck:
please show me where I have called someone a name in this thread? And "marxist" isn't a name, it's an accurate descriptor.

JIT:
Offense? No offense taken, I wasn't beating on mrg anyway; just showing the other side to his argument, using his own source. What I have in common with him is that I agree alot of our govt is broken. I just disagree that we need to fundamentally change the country to fix it; I think we need to return to the founding principles to fix it. As a matter of fact, I actually agree with some of the OWS complaints... I just don't agree that "ending capitalism" or "taxing the rich" or "free education for everyone" is the answer. I have no personal problem with mrg; I simply disagree with his politics. But then that's what all this is ABOUT.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

A term like "Marxist" is a descriptor if the person being tagged self-identifies with the term. If the person would deny it, then it is a form of name calling.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

r/c, it is an interesting question as to why the dramatic disparity came about. I don't think the government had anything to do with it, then or now, and I would probably not be in favor of any government rules on salary levels. So what's going on, and can or should anything be done?

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

jd2, all I can say to that opinion of yours is, you're wrong.

Call me caucasian, and I'll sue you for name calling. Doesn't matter if it's fact or if I admit to actually being caucasian or not.

Same goes for tea partier/conservative/small business owner/male/dog owner/guitar player, etc etc etc.

You're wrong. Marxism is defined. Those that believe in it's function, are marxists. Capitalism is defined. Those that believe in it's function, are capitalists.

You're simply resorting to calling me names (a "name-caller") because you don't have any ammo. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

So how do you lable this
We want and need just tax laws with fue loop holes but full of insentive to keep the work in the usa to refran from from buying from countrys who put import limits on us when we empose none on them
to have ceo' and have companys put America first and not the all mighty dollar where i can invest in our company and recive a fair divitden from that investment . to have no home less in our nation to have little job less. to have new jobs created by the private sector to find work with in our nation that is brought to the needy who ca work as many of our intrastruckers are falling a part

just what do these people on wall sreet want do they even know I dont feel they do years from now they will say ( and son your mother and I met in the park in the great wall street protest )
what do they want ?

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

The hole in your argument is the "many reasonable people" part. First, you'd have to define "reasonable" (you probably think the OWS demands are "reasonable", so...), THEN you'd have to admit that "reasonable" and "well-informed" don't always go hand in hand.

Since "reasonable" is a matter of personal opinion, the argument has no foundation, and thus falls.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

@PSU in Jersey
"Now we have $529 MILLION given to an auto company in FINLAND. The White House says they use parts and suppliers here in the USA, but let face it...We shouldn't be lending tax payer money to foreign companies."

please so a link to this

Caged Animal ✉
Oct '11

Wrong, mg. Wrong.

"Marxist" is only an emotionally-charged word because YOU MAKE IT SO. The word has a definition; it is a political model; I am using the word literally. Yes, I happen to believe Marxism is not only a failed political model (many times over), but also poison for the American model of a representative republic.

If the term "Marxist" has baggage that goes with it, it's only because of people like Lenin & Stalin to practiced it. The chose that political model, used it to brutal effect, and help to prove it does not work. Anywhere. Ever. So in that regard, that Marxism has been proven as a failed political model, sure- the word has a WELL-EARNED negative connotation.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

I thank God these protesters are in Zuccotti Park and not my neck of the woods.
I don't know how much longer their "neighbors" will be able to tolerate them.

LV Mom
Oct '11

Mr. G you said: "I do think that Obama's open checkbook helped blunt the recession's blow, did not fix it, but helped."

The only thing government spending can do for employment in the short term is create temporary jobs. It's extremely difficult for government spending to create long term jobs in the private sector. (Of course the government has proven they can create long term jobs if the are government employees. We all know the problems of that approach.

The Shovel Ready projects President Obama funded was an absolute false premise. The only thing that type of spending does is DELAY the inevitable. Downtown Hackettstown sidewalks is a perfect example. Much of that project was funded by the stimulus dollars. That provided temporary work for the company with the contract. May have delayed a layoff if that company was in trouble. But now the project is done and the economy is still in the tank. No more stimulus funds for that company, now layoffs are a concern. Unless of course President Obama gets more spending approved. Where does it end?
Some might say now that the sidewalks are done, more people will shop in Hackettstown. Really? New sidewalks are going to bring shoppers? No, NEW, LONG TERM JOBS bring shoppers.
Using the example of the sidewalks is just a metaphor for the stimulus as a whole.

You see President Obama didn't blunt the recession, he just delayed some layoffs. The Federal Government can't maintain employees, unless it keeps spending! Vicious circle that caused this problem.

President Obama's actions were not helpful except to put a band aid on a broken leg. Then the band aid was pulled off slow. It may have been better to use those funds to support tax incentives for employers to to expand and grow. That provides a long term job, and the best cure for a recession is a job. (Sorry to invoke President Reagan)

Mr G you also say: "Frankly, his best bet is his success in protecting us and getting the bad guys"
Tell that to the people in Iraq in a few years. With our troops gone, Iran will have an easy time in Iraq. Iran is the "bad guys" and President Obama wants to "negotiate" with them. Wholly Smokes!
Also, President Obama has used drones to out right kill people, (including targeting one American Citizen). I'm okay with that because of who they were. I'm surprised you support such a policy. I know the left wing of the President's party are very much opposed that policy.
When it comes to protecting America, I think I'll trust the Republicans or Hillary just a bit more that President Obama.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

1) I'm not catholic.

2) lemme guess, because the source (you posted) is religious-based, it can't possibly have any truth in it? Are you a bigot now?

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Addendum: I guess it's a good thing the Iraqi government wouldn't grant immunity to our troops. Otherwise President Obama was planning to leave 3000 - 4000 troops there.
Looks like this promise will be kept AGAINST his will. It's crazy that he will take credit for fulfilling his promise when it was the Iraqi leadership that forced the issue.

He came into office with such promise and opportunity. He got the Billion Dollar campaign war chest and we got the shaft.

C'mon Hillary...step out, step up, and challenge this guy.

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

What do you expect from a "Community Organizer". Obama is just a lawyer, he thinks he knows it all, but does not. In many ways, he is a high-level BS artist.

I am starting to be lukewarm about this "protest". I saw an interview with one (of them) and he was a 27 year old former teacher that had to go back to living with mom and dad after he lost his job. Hmmm, go work at Walmart; go to work at Burger King; start a company from home while in the parent's nest; start digging ditches, what did people do in the 30's -- they worked.

iJay ✉
Oct '11

It's interesting:
>some on this thread are not happy with Obama for not keeping his promises to his voters.
>The OWS folks also seem to be unhappy with what has been done (or not done) in the financial markets and the economy in general.

Also, regarding Fisker: I wonder how much Mr. Fisker donated to the democratic party? As someone mentioned before....that One Billion Dollar campaign fund didn't come form the "middle class".

Mr. G, I think I read something in your comments about President Obama having a lack of charisma. Really? It seems to me that's his best asset.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Oct '11

Our boys are coming home; the rest of your rhetoric is static.

PSU --- Whle folks llike him personally, he is often seen as somewhat cold and rigid or "professorial." He certainly does not come close to having Clinton-charisma but much better than Hillary.... I think he is actually a bit sarcastic which I appreciate ;>)

With regards to Fisker, which was a bonehead move not to stipulate "no US jobs, no money," in actuallity if the DOE is correct, all the $$$$ were spent in the U.S. for U.S. jobs and the remainder should be spent in the U.S. for the factory for the next car (the Nina). Still a bonehead loan given their business plan to sell $60K - $90K cars.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/280889/fisker-update-doe-challenges-last-nights-abc-news-report-jobs-greg-pollowitz

Same stuff is on the DOE web site.

mistegoogle ✉
Oct '11

Ha! If universal amnesty is one of OWS' goals, they're done. A large majority of the American people are AGAINST amnesty. Interesting how, as these OWS things continue, their movement becomes more & more socialist/globalist/left wing progressive.

Many recent (the last few years) immigration/amnesty polls cited here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/public-opinion/americans-oppose-amnesty.html

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

actually the OWS protesters are very focused on the issues of illegal and immoral practices in the financial sector and recent revisionist judicial decisions like the citizens united case that allowed unlimited political contributions from corporations. favorite sign i saw today - "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one"

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

Pure gold:

http://www.breitbart.tv/former-soviet-citizen-confronts-socialists-at-occupy-wall-street/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

mrg, I think so - must be fabricated.

But no doubt malnutrition and the effects therefrom were serious, even if stats on that do not exist.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Oct '11

Not cool at all. Hope they catch the f'ers that threw the bomb.

Now a DEODORANT Bomb... that would have been funny.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

^ thanks troll

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

rc, if you can't take the heat...

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

u got no heat troll

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

Funny, I get accused of "name-calling" for using the term "Marxist" which of course we all know is a political ideology, then I get called a troll? Too funny. I love it when the enemy's ammo runs out.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Freedom:

Blind spot --- sure. You accused Obama of President Obama had a chance to do this on our (the USA) terms. He didn't and now Iraq's prime minister did it for us. But (see third paragraph), as predicted President Obama is trying to take credit for it.

OK --- The current withdrawl in 2011 is actually the Bush contract and timetable. Look it up. Obama suggested a slower withdrawl, at the recommendation of the military, but NOT without protecting our troops from Iraqi courts. The Iraqi's denied that deal and Obama said, fine, we will stick to the Bush deal and timetable.

So what part of his decisions here are you objecting to? Pulling out? Sticking to the timetable agreed upon so many years ago? Listening to the military? Or protecting our boys from Iraqi courts?

Blind spot --- sure.

Obama's decision have ended two wars in two days getting us down to one conflict for the first time in over a decade. People found fault in Obama's approach to Libya. Blidnd spot? Now they find fault with ending our armed involvment in Iraq. And yet you see failure?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

RC,
You are right! change is coming, only not the change you are thinking of. the left wing media has been exposed for what they really are, OWS exposed for what they really are and Obama admin for what they really are. Alot of bluster, talk, and basically no real ideas. I just see alot of blamestorming, finger pointing and everything being blamed on GW,and the big "evil corporations". When will I see OWS protesting the whitehouse? how about the "hollywood stars" that are backing the protests? george soros? are'nt they part of the "evilness"? GE? Has anyone protested them? GE is probably one of the worst! But, they are far too connected with the whitehouse to have anyone protest them. If anyone is scared, it is the liberal media CBS, NBC, ABC. they now realize that people are no longer buying their state sponsored rhetoric. You are confusing a smear campaign with the truth. It kills me that the tea party was labeled as a racist org, but yet OWS has been backed by neo-nazis, the communist party and any far left org that decides to throw their hat in the ring, crickets...... from the "big 3 media" how come this has not been reported on? Since the internet has exploded you really have the opportunity to sift through all the news, not just the mainstream news. There is the real fear factor that you talk about. people no longer trust the news, at least I don't and probably never will....

bluelinr ✉
Oct '11

I am sick of working my tail off to pay more taxes to support people who want to sit on their butts or want to be handed a job. The world is competitive and unfair so deal with it and work harder. I am from Canada where our so-called healthcare is free and wonderful. Let me tell you that half of my family is dead because of free and wonderful healthcare. How would you like to wait a year for for an MRI or to see a doctor? Welcome to a socialist country. I am all for helping the needy but I refuse to help the lazy.

Jazzykatt ✉
Oct '11

OKdoky --- now we gots our Nazi's and Communist's to go along with our Marxist's. We be rockin n rollin now !!!

And I wonder: how long before half your family dies due to lack of health care do you seek additional help? Did you leave the other half behind to die when you came to America for the insurnace? Is it a family plan you have here?

For JR and Blu:

Why do you sit there so strange?
Is it because you are beautiful?
You must think we are deranged
Why do these guys guys beat on peace guys?

You must think Santa Clause weird
He has long hair and a beard
Giving his presents for free
Why do you guys mess with peace guys?

Let's get Santa Clause 'cause;
Santa Clause has a red suit
He's a communist
And a beard, and long hair
Must be a pacifist
What's in the pipe that he's smoking?

Mister Clause sneaks in your home at night.
He must be a dope fiend, to put you up tight
Why do you guys beat on peace guys?

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

that how the Marxist society is supposed to come about, through violent revolution.

and then in operation it turns into communism. that how it works


for the record the neo-nazis just like to stir things up , they been waiting for this for 50years,

first they went with the tea party and then when they threw them out they are now going with the wall streeters.

any port in storm i guess.

i wouldn't pay that association any mind, just because the amercian neo-nazi movement says they are supporting the wall streeters, i have not heard that the wall streeters are acknowledging the same. so put it where it belongs, in the trash bin. right beside the neo-cons.

all of this 'neo-' stuff leaves me cold anyways , i mean be the real thing, the full monty or just stay home. no need to pretend to be part of something or go half-way, go all-in or don't go at all.

BrotherDog ✉
Oct '11

Here is the blind spot Mr. G has around Obama.
Google stated Obama "decided" to follow the Bush timetable.

Let's be clear, Obama decided nothing. The Iraqi government said no immunity for the troops. That made Obama's decision for him.
Sooooo you can't give Obama credit for keeping this promise because if he had it his way our troops would not be coming home.
These are facts that are not debatable.

You still want to give him credit for this one....That's your blind spot, not my rhetoric.

Mr G asked: "So what part of his decisions here are you objecting to?" I'm not objecting to any part of "his decision" because he didn't make one. BUT he is attempting to take credit for it.

I'm glad the troops are coming home. I'm disappointed that our President, who called the war "dumb" and committed to ending the war, needed the Iraqi government to force his hand.

You see Mr. G, it's all about character and sticking to your word for me. Obama had the trust of many voters....then he became President and forgot us.
(I know you will say the others do the same thing. That's not a good response because that doesn't make it okay)

Freedom Watch ✉
Oct '11

^great job staying on topic troll.
crazy day of police aggresion in Oakland and Atlanta. here's hoping that the protesters stay non-violent and the police learn from these incidents. this generation doesn't want their own '4 dead in Ohio'.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

rc,

:)

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

bluelinr, i totally agree that wall street and washington are acting together. that's actually one of the main points of protest - too much wall street money giving a small percentage of people an exorbitant amount of influence with government. the point about greed was whether there is more on wall street or washington, not that there is none in washington. we hear a lot about washington. i think a great point of these protests is calling out the greed on wall street and in corporate board rooms, and the negative effect this has for the 99% on the outside.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

Looks like it is tough to target the Zionists:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_hate_in_zuccotti_KyGNaMM6eLBirVJN24fEEP

Censorship in action...

iJay ✉
Oct '11

the movement does have an anti-semitic problem.


there are a lot of Jew haters down in the camps.

i thought we were past this?

BrotherDog ✉
Oct '11

Oooops --- here's the link for Freedom Watch http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2011-10-25/was-pulling-all-us-troops-out-iraq-obamas-real-plan

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Reminds me of what the left said about the Tea Party....:>)

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Google not letting government suppress evidence online -
http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/2011/10/27/google-stands-firm-in-the/

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

Since WHEN is the govt trying to suppress reports of police brutality? Obama himself has said he SUPPORTS the OWS movement. If there's police brutality happening, and the administration supports the OWS, they'd be playing it for all it was worth to gain sympathy for the OWS movement. They're not. Nice try.

I still find it puzzling the police are giving the OWS a hard time IF THEY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL... after all, police = unions, and we all know the OWS movement is pro-union. So the cops & OWS should be on the same side, right? Seems to me the police are being FORCED to do their jobs by the OWS protesters.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Wow, what a charming bunch of folks. I love my guns, but .....wow. Love the flannel though.

Here's some tea party violence for you, certainly not hard to find. Not to mention the inflamtory, over the top, violent posters and signs. Makes OWS look like, well, a bunch of kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/12/fearing-tea-party-violence-arizona-republicans-resign/

http://patriotmajority.us/news_and_events/2010-03-tea-party-linked-to-harassment-intimidation-violence

But wait, there's more..... We would see more of this but the left-wing, liberal, press is a bunch of weak-kneed sissy pants who, for some strange reason, are afraid of guns, bricks, and sputem. Go figure.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Erik B Anderson, your link only proves that this is an extremely non threatening group of people. There were no reports of violence.

Too bad you can't say the same for OWS.....

LV Mom
Oct '11

The NYPD sargeant who pepper sprayed peaceful protesters is in serious trouble. The Oakland police department are facing tough review by elected officials in Oakland for their use of excessive force Tuesday night. It is clear the police are trying to provoke violence from an overwhelmingly peaceful protest.

realitycheck ✉
Oct '11

if they sue any of the OWS protesters, there should be a fair trial and all the facts should be heard before judgment is made

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

if somebody takes this guy's rights, he should sue to get it back, no?

how is this not a threat, LV Mom? "I'll take your life"?

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

Here's your video Huckleberry. Sure looks like a wet one to me....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html

and some more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/tea-party-protests-nier-f_n_507116.html

such a fun group..... I just love the signs n slogans and calls to action..... And whenever they get lucky, these men of principle say" "hey, he was just a nut, he wasn't one of us...."

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Occupy policing blunder opens rifts in Oakland city hall
Fallout from Tuesday's heavyhanded police operation against Occupy Oakland may cost both mayor and police chief their jobs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/27/occupy-policing-blunder-oakland?CMP=twt_fd

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

"I think they should haul everyone of them in and lock them up for a while."

now that's scary

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

"Huckleberry"? And *I* get accused of name-calling? You guys are hilarious, you've lost control. You & rc need to get a room.

Thanks for the video. Something definitely happened there... I certainly didn't see a loogie hocked or anything, I see a lunatic, screaming, protester frothing at the mouth and probably spraying everywhere. However, still not cool. And I can see how media would try to turn that into "racists tea partier spits on black lawmaker."

If I were that lawmaker, and I believed I was PURPOSELY spit on, I would have told the cop next to me "I want you arrest him on assault charges."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

The Oakland Police have a pretty good recent history of abuse; pretty sure this one is on them.

NYPD on the other hand are pretty darn good at this; pretty sure that one is on the OWS.

However it was not the NYPD threatening suit, it was the Pres of the NYPD's Sergeant's Benevolent Association. Bad headline editing.

NYPD would never sue, Commisioner Reagan is too much a gentelman for that.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Huckleberry is a reference to something Doc Holladay said in the movie Tombstone. "I'm your Huckleberry." Could somebody alert the moderator on Superman's post? I don't see an alert button here today.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Oct '11

Definite namecalling. However the name definition --- take your choice, yoiu gots the good, you gots the bad, and you gots the strange.

http://home.earthlink.net/~knuthco1/Itemsofinterest1/huckleberrysource.htm

Rates right up there with Marxist.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

lvmom -- it was the paper's headline, meaning got lost in the editing and they went with something more inflamatory.

Erik --- crowds have risk, protesting has risk, being a cop is a risky job and being on-edge for an entire shift is probably some scary stuff. I didn't look at the pepper spray stuff, but stuff will happen and you can bet Tony is getting an earful at least if he sprayed his guys too. And when the OWS-ers in NYC take to the open street without approval, the situation gets amped up quite a bit.

While Oakland police have issues, the NYPD is pretty darn reasonable. There should not be unprovoked confrontations, frankly, unless the protestors are pushing at the seams. So sure, you get your clips n such, but like I said, once the protestors go off the reservation like taking control of the streets versus staying to the sidewalf like they did the other night versus getting a parade permit, then the risk level of mistakes goes way up. Without seeing a movie of what happened in the previous half hour or so, hard to say "who's on first." It's a risky situation especially if the crowed is on the edge of control.

I have stood the line many times and even the most tame of situations can spiral out of control quickly from either side. Tense situations can erupt by even just a loud noise. I have pushed giant waves of people forward just by chantting "go, go, go" in ever increasing volumes. It's frankly easy to incite, ease to provoke, and easy for the police to become unhinged in these dangerous crowd situations. My advice: keep your head down, know you evacuation route, and always have a bandana or towel (see, hitchhiker's guide.....)

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

Ahh, I thought it was my shortening of the title you were referring to.


A good read if you like Dave Ramsey. I think he pretty much sums it up for me.

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occupy-wall-street/lifeandmoney_economy/text3/

"So to summarize, I’m not very impressed at the moment. I’m not impressed by your temper fit. I’m not impressed at your lack of goals and focus. I’m not impressed by the fact that the only thing I see about your movement is ignorance, immaturity and envy. Grow up—and get a job.

Yes, there are jobs out there. There are jobs out there that haven’t even been invented yet. Go create the next Facebook or Weed Eater. Go pick up so much dog poop that you can start your own fertilizer company. And stop complaining that companies are TOO RICH while also complaining that they aren’t RICH ENOUGH to hire you! I’ve seen a lot of you guys. I wouldn’t hire you, either. But if you take all of that energy and excitement and pour it into something new and creative, you’ll get the chance to serve a whole lot of people really well, and over a decade or two, you’ll get to become the very thing you’re now protesting: rich people who actually earned their money."

LV Mom
Oct '11

Bravo, LV Mom. Great summation.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Most of the people AT OWS don't don't know what OWS is protesting...lol

JeffersonRepub ✉
Oct '11

Erik: saw it on the news the other night where the marchers, even though cordoned off to the sidewalk by the police, instead took to the street blocking traffic, etc. The cops did nothing accept to try to herd the cats but these types of antics just up the risk factor since now innocent bystanders (folks in cars) are in the middle of the fray as well. Would make me nervous if I was a cop.

RC -- I aggree. Mr. Ramsey is jumping aboard the Cain not-having-a-job-is-your-own-fault bus and ignoring the macro economic downturn we are in.

Banks are cash heavy but loans are near impossible to get, hurdles are very high. Meanwhile, since cash laden, they are offering any interest (why bother, no loans anyway), and instead are trying to make profits off new service charges.

Companies too are cash heavy but would rather let the current salaried work force do double overtime versus hiring. I guess that it their choice. I give them credit for managing their books through this debacle, but they should pay their fair share of taxes and not be able to keep cash via loophole, especially the quid-pro-quo for contributions, and that's the criminality many in the OWS are after.

The rich, aka, those small businessmen who file as individuals, own more of American than ever, pay less taxes than ever, and after being given the tax extension so they would feel "comfortable" creating new jobs, just pocketed the cash instead.

So, tough times, lots of people without cash and lots of people with cash, but holding, means ------ not enough velocity in the economy.

And while I agree: "I’m not very impressed at the moment. I’m not impressed by your temper fit. I’m not impressed at your lack of goals and focus. I’m not impressed by the fact that the only thing I see about your movement is ignorance, immaturity and envy." Sure, that's true, but give em some time for leaders and organization to emerge.

I don't agree with the Ramsey's Cain-ism of: "Grow up—and get a job." No, there are not a lot of jobs out there; there are few jobs, and hundreds trying for each one. It's called unemployment over 9%, get it? Only Rick Perry is creating jobs and he is in oil country and still only can create Mikey-D level jobs --- not the glowing success he advertises.

And even if you could invent something, that too is harder than ever to get a loan to get it going (see bank stuff above).

Tough times and I have no issue with complaining that companies are TOO RICH while also complaining that they aren’t RICH ENOUGH to hire you! Especially if you focus on how they make proft via tax loopholes. And while you're at it, feel free to complain about the class warfare being undertaken by the rich in order to own more of American than at any time in history setting up a class distinction like we have never seen before in this country. Compared to pre-Bush tax cuts, these folks are paying less than even and one would think they could chip in a bit more to help out America. They certainly didn't create jobs when Obama extended their tax break.

By the way Mr, Ramsey, just like it is your right to pen these poor points of logic, it is their RIGHT to complain, so have a nice day.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

It was channel 4 news, I saw it, I am not searching it tyvm.

mistergoogle ✉
Oct '11

There is a book, kind of a non-fiction thriller, that was a best-seller last year, "The Big Short", by Michael Lewis (author of "Moneyball"). I'm only now reading it, and the following quote caught my attention as it kind of fits into this thread.

It's about one of the main characters, a Steve Eisman, who "had been a strident Republican. He joined right-wing organizations....", etc. But when he got to Wall Street and saw what was going on (this was back around 2003), his politics drifted left. "When you're a conservative Republican, you never think people are making money by ripping other people off," he said..... "I now realized there was an entire industry, called consumer finance, that basically existed to rip people off."

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Nov '11

Justin you say; "But that's neither here nor there as it's patently clear that the majority of US citizens continue to ignore the foundational issues that allow the 'bad guys' to do their bidding."

I'm not sure it's fair to blame the "majority of US citizens". The majority elected a man who promised to clean up and reform Wall Street. The best thing any US citizen can do is vote for the candidate who will clean up the mess.

I understand your frustration, but the majority stepped up during the last election. President Obama didn't.

Freedom Watch ✉
Nov '11

Unfortunately when you set up camps and anyone can come in, all kinds of troublemakers join in with the idealists. The good people that are there really need to call it a day now and find another way.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Nov '11

Justin, You ask which of the two parties are willing to change the underlying system? Well, I think that question is what gave rise to the Tea Party movement. Those folks seem to understand how the "benefits" are paid and would like to reform the system. Many disagree with the type of reform, but that's okay. The conversation needs to start somewhere.

Sounds like there is a lot about the system you don't like. Not liking the system is the easy part. Having a solution is where it gets tough.

Freedom, You are correct, the majority did step up and vote for Obama. Only those who are blinded by there own thought process can believe that vote has paid off. Even those on the left know they made a mistake but can't admit it....yet. Same thing happened when Jimmy Carter was elected. Only Ted Kennedy had the courage on the left to step up. I don't think the democratic party has anyone with that kind of back bone today. Who would it be? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary? (Hillary is a maybe but I doubt it).

President Bill Clinton was in awful shape (politically) when the Gingrich congress took the majority. President Clinton made a strategic shift that saved his presidency and produced a good working relationship with a republican congress. The blue print for success was there. President Obama refused to follow it.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
-Benjamin Franklin

and we trust the word of a man who will stand out in the rain wit a key on a kite in a thunder storm shocking is it not

give up liberty to gain a little security lol what liberty the liberty to run wild inthe streets . the liberty to sell drugs the liberty to keep the air ways safe
even in MR Franklins day we had laws and orders .with out some focus you will walk blindly and stumbl and fall .

but do people want law and order I dont think so do the punish ments fit the crime no . so what liberty is given up I ask the people who yell were giving up our freedoms that a genneral state ment

Caged Animal ✉
Nov '11

PSU, I agree about the Tea Party. I had high hopes as they were being formed but then reality sunk in when it was obvious their platform was being molded to fit into the existing political system.

Similarly, I think the OWS movement could be good for the country if they would just take the next step; they are sooooooo close. Direct their energies to fix the real problem and we might actually get somewhere.

justintime ✉
Nov '11

Justin... agree with your posts. I think that the political system as it stands is worse than worthless - gridlocked, polarized and doing more harm than good... and have thought that the only thing that had a chance of producing change was a political uprising from the people.. have been hopefully waiting and waiting for come organized, unified, thoughtful and intelligent platform from OWS, but am frustrated by what appears to be a group of people simply intent upon voicing discontent without any real statement of intent... Inevitably leading to the kinds of conflicts we are seeing now...

and so on ✉
Nov '11

It’s hard to see the ‘animals’ of Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park from the luxury of a warm office
Protesters are not the uncooth pack that some would like you to believe they are.
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS - Saturday, November 5 2011

Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/s-hard-animals-occupy-wall-street-zuccotti-park-luxury-a-warm-office-article-1.972785#ixzz1ctyvwIfc

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

Like I said before. If you would care to watch where some of these folks go (and not the homeless hanging around for free food) in the coming years, many/most will "sell out".

I don't think we have a Buddha or Gandhi there, but maybe we do...

iJay2 ✉
Nov '11

One assaulted a police officer, so they arrested twenty? I think the ratio is more like 1 in 30, or more.

Here's a guy with a camera getting shot for no reason at all in Oakland:
http://youtu.be/I0pX9LeE-g8

Do you think there will be an investigation to try to find out who pulled the trigger?

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

Erik,
Perhaps I wasn't clear.

One was arrested for assaulting a police officer.
19 others were arrested for various other charges.

My point is these people are not animals, but they are not peaceful protesters either.
There have been reports of drug abuse, rape, prostitution etc. Some these reports have been "linked" or copied into this very thread.

These are facts and they are indisputable.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

It's alright gang. As the the weather turns colder, they'll lose interest. It'll all be over soon. The movement has been wholly ineffective, except to garner news time, which actually harms the movement due to their behaviors. There IS such a thing as bad press when you are trying to get the people on your side. Most of the American people see this bad press and form their opinion of the movement based on it. Won't be long now.

That's not to say the OWS platform doesn't have a couple of valid grievances; but they are going about it the wrong way. Once again I will say, they need to take a lesson from the Tea Party as to how to get change enacted. Or maybe NOT.... since Americans certainly don't want to "end capitalism" and use the mass-murderer Che as a role model for revolution. lol

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

i'm shocked you don't understand this movement :) it's a bunch of individuals, some of which want to focus on one issue, others wanting to focus on another. that's called independent thinking, as opposed to writing over and over again what neo-cons tell you to say.

realitycheck ✉
Nov '11

PSU - Your statement "these people are not animals, but they are not peaceful protesters either." is a generalization. It is not a fact. It is very disputable.

JRepub - You can call it anything you want, but that just means you're calling it something, and remaining willfully ignorant to what it actually is.


realitycheck- I'm not shocked they don't understand. We live in a very conservative area. Groupthink is the way to be. Trying to understand something is taboo. You got to spout Fox News talking points around here, or be exposed to ridicule.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

JR - You're just calling my view twisted again, but you have nothing to back up why others should agree with you. Didn't your mother tell you it's not polite to call people names?

Here's something interesting, John Clemmer, the founder of the Warren County Tea Party Patriots, wants to put limits on Free Speech in Belvidere:


Occupy Belvidere? Not so much, town officials say
More: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/express-times/index.ssf/2011/11/occupy_belvidere_not_so_much.html

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

post hippies? che worshippers? doubt any of them know anything about that, though they certainly have a "timothy Leary" view of things.

bluelinr ✉
Nov '11

Erik, don't waste your time with the troll on this thread - no one else does :). occupy wall street has hit the nail on the head - the unchecked corporate criminality and ever increasing wage inequality are vital issues that need to be corrected. they have been saying this since day one. they don't need to follow anyone else's model, especially not the fascist TP'ers who got major smack downs in multiple states of their radical agenda in tuesday's election. ows has started a national discussion and a growing groundswell for real change. keep up the good work.

realitycheck ✉
Nov '11

JRepub - So you rest your case at "a bunch of hippies and slackers will accomplish nothing because I said so." That's great man. Your trollishness will not be missed. Thanks for trying.

What has the Tea Party done, really? They get angry and angry and angry at anyone who says there's anything wrong anywhere, especially America. That means when something actually does go wrong, then the witnesses are going to remain silent and the problem will persist.

America has been a work in progress from the beginning and it will always be a work in progress. Without agitators for change, we could never be a free country. Slavery. Right to Vote for All. Civil Rights. Right to a Public Defender. The Supreme Court and the Legislatures make history all the time. Why should anybody stop because somebody who won't say his real name on the internet calls him or her hippies and slackers?


mgoogle - There's plenty to be very critical about. But it's a work in progress. OWS isn't the only thing that needs to be criticized, by any means.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

erik - i read the news stroy thanks for the link,

i cna;t believle that some would sya those things that was, some of the stupidist statements i've seen recently.

limit the time of free speech?, silly stuff to speak out loud, esp since in belvidere nothing is happening with the occupy crowd, (yet)

but you know hat? now that the guy is on the record it's for sure someone wil try and get something going in the square by the court hosue.

what a dope, (and this is from a fellow conservative)

jefrepub - the state is blue overall, but the county is red, and i get it that some posters here feel outnumbered and out-gunned (literaly out-gunned)

BrotherDog ✉
Nov '11

Erik,
They are not animals. They are not peaceful protesters.
You used Jimmy Breslin to support the case that they are not animals.
There have been multiple references in this thread pointing to violence by the protesters.

Both statements have been proven to be true.
That makes them facts and indisputable.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

Not to single anyone out, but if you want anyone to read your posts, for goodness sake, PROOFREAD before submitting.

cbel ✉
Nov '11

PSU - do you know what a generalization is? Some are violent. Some are non-violent. You are the one trying to paint a broad brush. That is my point. I thought you understood. Next time look in a dictionary. You're just trolling now.

As far as Jimmy Breslin goes, I honestly did not know who the author of that particular piece was when I posted it. What does it matter?

And speaking of generalizations, JRepub said something earlier about how perfect the Tea Party is. Well, here are some Tea Partiers caught planning conspiring to commit voter fraud, which is apparently a felony in Wisonsin:
http://www.politiscoop.com/us-politics/wisconsin-politics/570-tea-party-plans-premeditated-felony.html

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

Stop putting words in my mouth please. I never said the TP was "perfect". I said they were "effective", which they have been, and which the OWS has not been.

As far as generalizations go- that's life: when you have news stories virtually every day of crimes being committed at OWS, or a dead bosy being found (New Orleans), or public defecation, it's safe to assume the movement is going to be painted with that brush. It doesn't matter that these are supposedly "bad apples ruining the bunch"... the point is THEY ARE RUINING THE BUNCH. If the OWS wants to "police itself" (like in the case of handing out pamphlets telling people not to report rape to the authorities), they should police these defecating, communist, che-loving, rapists out of their movement. Because they are spoiling the bunch.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

Wholly Smokes Erik! Perhaps you are just acting silly.

If not....
You may be the only one reading these posts that took my comment as if it applied to: "every single person that ever protested or sympathized with the protest.." as you posted.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

Just 2 links, very easily googled, there are more.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31759

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/20/ows-pamphlet-rape-victims-police/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

Jeff:

Just some clarifications since they actually occurred in this thread.]

First, when you say "that corporations should in no way be allowed to contribute to political campaigns in any fashion" I take it you do realize that corporations can not directly contribute to a poitical candidate. It is against the law. They can create PACS but that is not a direct contribution nor is it under control of the corporations, it is under control of the PAC as clarified above. They also can contribute soft money, but this too can not go to a candiate or campaign but can only go to "party building activities." It is a bit brey, thus the word "soft."

Just wanted to clarify what your weasel-wording might have obscured. So are you against PACS in which case you are against individuals joining a group to further the goals of the individuals and their jobs. And if you are against soft money, then you are against individuals and groups funding party building for the respective political parties.

But corporations can not directly contribute to candidates nor campaigns.

Second, you keep flagging Oakland but for the first shooting, this one by the police, you fail to tell the whole story of a organization with a long history of bad behavior, racial profiling, harrassment, and brutality. Worse by far than most police organizations. This one really needs to go to court to be resolved. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/oakland-police-department-black-community.

For the second one that you just posted the "jury" is still out as to whether OWS had any part in it or did the violence just share the same space. From the left: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/occupy-oakland-shooting_b_1087696.html

And a little closer to the center: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/11/11-1

You really need to look deeper, or at least look, before tossing grenades.

mistergoogle ✉
Nov '11

mg, did you notice I talked about lobbies? Look them up. There's more than one way to put money into a politician's pocket for political/legislative gain.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

mg,

who said anything about "legally"? You must be extremely naive.

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

My whole point has been, despite some of the good platform and intentions OWS has, they need to be careful who they "let into their bed", because they will stain the movement with their dirt, it has happened, and continues to happen. Also, they need to be protesting washington dc, not wall street. Changes cannot be made by protesting the people that the govt are letting get away with this stuff... the GOVT is the root of the problem.

I never said the Tea Party was perfect, I said they were effective. And they have been. The OWS movement, while getting alot of press, has been, and will continue to be, wholly ineffective. The only thing I can see OWS turning into is an even larger movement of violence, which, as I stated earlier, they need to be careful who they let into their bed, lest they become useful idiots for someone else's purpose. OWS has some good points, I would hate to see them wasted because the movement turns to violence, criminality, and worse. At that point, they become merely a nuisance and a distraction to turn people's attention away from things that are happening in govt, right under their noses. OWS is falling right into line with Cloward & Piven, whether they know it, or wish it, or not.

http://cloward-piven.com/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

Erik,

I think I finally get your humor. At first I thought you were trying to be serious in this debate. My mistake.

Thanks for adding the "silly" to this thread.

Regardless, my original point still stands. There are many reports of violence among the OWS groups. It's unfortunate because those reports deflect from the purpose of the protest. Does anyone remember the purpose? :-)

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

Oh JR, now you are just being silly. Face it Dude, you thought corporations funded canidates and campaigns and now you just can't admit you were wrong.

As far as the Tea Party being peaceniks and such, baloney. First, read the signs. There is a whole lot of unpeaceful stuff being written and displayed.

Second, remember the difference in the actions of the OWS and Tea Party. The OWS is an occupation. They are there 24/7 and anyone can come there, and everyone there is assumed to be OWS. Therefore all actions taking place in or around the OWS occupations are assumbed to be OWS sponsored.

The Tea Party really does not exist. A bunch of people get together for a short time and then disband. There is no central group, no lists, just sponsorship of certain REPUBLICAN candidates who claim to be part of the party. Here they are: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/29/who-is-the-tea-party-caucus-in-the-house/ . But can you find anyone else? Not really. That's why when people get shot in Arizona, there is no Tea Party to take credit. They are a distibuted group with no formal membership.

Buit look at the members in Congress who are claiming to be Teal Party. Read the signs, listen to the rhetoric. And remember, these folks in Congress support this, all of this. And vote accordingnly to your beliefs. Because here's what these "peaceful" "non violent" people are saying and what they believe:

Obama: Undocumented Socialist

Speak for Yourself Obama! We ARE a Christian Nation!

Beware Obama's Hitler Youth

Hitler Gave Good Speeches, Too

Obama's Priorities: $900 MILLION to Hamas - $50 THOUSAND to Italy

Throw Barney Frank Under The Bus

Comrade Obama Says OBEY

Clinging to My God, My Guns, and My Money

Cap 'n' Trade? Lock 'n' Load!

RISE UP - RELOAD - REVOLT

Hear My Voice Or Hear My Gun

Mainstream Media, Hollywood - Guilty of Treason? Yes, They Are!
=====================

Yupper, I don't see anyone advocating violence against any group or individual here, he said sarcastically. It's just that when they get caught, they don't have their Tea Party card on them......

mistergoogle ✉
Nov '11

Good post, mrg.

jerseydutchman2 ✉
Nov '11

*******Erik---JRepub - First I will address the #OccupyBaltimore statement, which says: "Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate authority."

They have every right and the support of the group to report it. What gives?

It is already well known that OWS is brutalized and undermined by the police on a daily basis. Just making reference to this fact does not discourage any actual victims from reporting the sexual assaults. ******


Erik, If they do not encourage a rape victim to report the crime, they discourage it. I think any child could pick up on that but you refuse to. They are undermined by their own actions. Hence, there is no debate. You are blind to this cause, regardless of how badly they behave and their lack of clarity on issues they claim to be protesting. It seems to me you are playing devil's advocate to the point that I can't take you seriously. Not that you care I'm sure.

LV Mom
Nov '11

Isn't this interesting... more 1st Amendment rights at work!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-up-nyc-business-owners-plan-counter-protest-against-occupy-wall-street/

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

BrotherDog: I would rather sniff the rariified air of higher taxes on the rich and closing loopholes for the rich and corporations alike than to brownose the rich hoping for a nugget of a job lhandout like yoiu.

The Tea Party is a coalition of distributed groups with no central organization or membership. You can't really join but you can belong.

From WIKI: "The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I do not smoke anything thank you very much; my head is clear, yet you seem befuddled about the nature of your very own party. And you tend to use the rhetoric of a troglodyte to attempt to prove your point badly. I just pray that is not that case and you are just having a bad, bad day. Sit. Sit. Take a deep breath. Are you clear now? Do you get it?

mistergoogle ✉
Nov '11

PSU - You're twisting it around. You take every side of the argument, then you say we should avoid the anger. I am just baffled now. I was referring to your argument when I used the phrase "every single person" and you know that. You said "They are not peaceful protesters." Don't you understand grammar? That is an absolute. I was criticizing you for using absolutes and now you are projecting your own absolutes onto me. That's not a fair debate.

LV Mom - They have the support of the group if they want to report it. You copied that from my comment. They are given pamphlets telling them how to report it and why it's a good idea. How they are "not encouraged" is for you to prove now. The statement about not encouraging the police getting involved in the community was a general statement about not wanting police involved in the community because they are being undermined by police brutality and all the other things. Do you want police following you around wherever you go, no matter what you do? Would you *encourage* that the police follow your friends around all the time?

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

I wounder how many police officers have blended into the incampment and are just on stand by

Caged Animal ✉
Nov '11

LV Mom- There are sure to be some instances when rapes are not encouraged to be reported, as there are in any organizations, institution and even family.

But, did you read the analysis of the memos in the conservative blogs that JRepub posted? The analysis is misleading to serve the conservative political agenda. That is where my outrage comes from. You and JRepub and PSU have consistently tried to trip me up in my arguments. All I want is for sense to be made out of all this, yet you call me dumber than a child and you can't take me seriously and leave it at that. Your previous comments are all partisan, biased and prejudiced. How can anyone take you seriously?

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

I didn't know this is what NYPD meant by "unsanitary":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/occupy-marcher-reports-destroyed-torah-in-zuccotti-park-cleaning/2011/11/15/gIQA6VyKON_video.html

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

A New York judge issued an order Tuesday allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters to return to Zuccotti Park, just hours after scores of riot police ordered them out and tore down their tents.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/us/new-york-occupy-eviction/index.html

Enough with the Passive aggressive comments, already.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

Many judges are idiots.

superman
Nov '11

Props to Mayor Bloomberg - enough with this blight on the city. Protest (whatever they are protesting) and go home at night. Nothing is being accomplished with this 24/7 squatting anyway. I can only imagine the disruption, annoyance, filth etc. that the residents and businesses have had to deal with since this mess started.

LM1 ✉
Nov '11

PSU - thank you for clarifying. I understand now.

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

Erik, i applaud your patience in dealing with all these straw-man arguments. i'm sure you realize they are trying to draw you into ridiculous arguments with their ridiculous statements to stop you from making your strong arguments for the occupy movement. the fact is the occupy wall street movement has the support of 2/3 of Americans, more than double those that support tp'ers. jealousy is even ugly on internet forums. no matter what power plays the plutocrats and their eleceted officials try, the genie is out of the lamp and the important issues raised by the occupy movement can no longer be swept under the rug.

realitycheck ✉
Nov '11

rc said
"the fact is the occupy wall street movement has the support of 2/3 of Americans"


Source please, since you tout this as a "fact."

JeffersonRepub ✉
Nov '11

"I may have said you were being silly, which is different from saying you are silly."

"were" is a form of "to be"


You made two comments. You said they were "not all animals." And then you immediately said they are violent. Both are generalizations. Only today did I realize that by putting them together you were trying to avoid making one big generalization. You have corrected the misperception now, but when you say "They are not peaceful protesters," which you did four days ago you have to prove it in order for you to be taken seriously, which means you have to go around to every single protester and supporter of OWS in the world (which is many millions of people) and somehow find a reliable test to be sure "They are not peaceful protesters." It's called logic. It's called, let your yea be yea and your no be no. It's called don't be dishonest. You sir are dishonest. And it's a pattern with you, later on you say:

"You may be the only one reading these posts that took my comment as if it applied to: "every single person that ever protested or sympathized with the protest.." as you posted."

To which I said that you are going to have to go around and find everyone whoever read your comment and find out how they took it. Then you dismissed it by saying I was being silly, or my comments were silly or not serious or humorous whatever. Then, after I explained all this to you, and asked you for a simple apology, you claimed you NEVER called me silly. NEVER with exclamation points. For somebody who claims to be against generalizations, let me quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."

http://youtu.be/It0Dtm1gFFQ

Open a book about logic. There are a ton of websites out there that can tell you about Straw Man Fallacies. False Equivalencies. Projection Defense Mechanism. Ad Hominem Attacks. I like Nizkor.com. Perhaps realitycheck can suggest some. You are deliberately upsetting people here. I am one, obviously, and you know it. How much torment are you going to put out here before you knock it off? Political posts are usually discouraged outright on Hackettstownlife.com. I applaud whoever it is for letting this one go, but the rules still apply.

I never once said there was no violence at the protests. And guess what? I can say that with complete honesty. Your rhetorical question about anybody remembering the cause can be easily googled. It is not anybody's job to do that for you. Your willful ignorance and repeated demonstrations of dishonest, duplicitous statements about how you NEVER had anything to do with making generalizations is called trolling.

Your rhetorical question implies that there is no cause. Is that what you are implying? What are you implying? What exactly are you doing here? Everybody knows there is violence at the protests. Your pointing it out here is fine. Once. Repeatedly stating it and ignoring and obfuscating your own logic is not fine. Go away, man. Seriously, go away.

Erik


PS - I came here to post this link from the Society of Professional Journalists' statement about the NYPD arresting people just doing their job last night. Oops!
http://spj.org/news.asp?ref=1091

Erik B. Anderson ✉
Nov '11

RC wrote - "2/3 of Americans support the OWS movement?"

please cite your source for this claim, i don't buy it at face value, there has to be context and a back story to this 2/3 figure.

everyone I know does not support these protesters, but strangely enough, I actually do support them in their effort to further the discussion, but messing up the park is something I do not support, also the criminal activity i don not support,

but generally i do support what they are trying to say, and as you know I tend to lean towards the Conservative side of the issues.

BrotherDog ✉
Nov '11

"They are becoming less popular and more hated everyday. They are hurting their cause at this point. They are too angry and worked up to see the truth. Most of the 99% does not want to be represented by this group, they're embarrassed by them." lvmom
"most people DO agree with me across the country on the OWS movement" jr
" Most of the American people see this bad press and form their opinion of the movement based on it" jr
yeah, cause the opponents of ows are showing sooooooo many sources for their statements :)
"A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found that 82 percent of New York voters are O.K. with the protests, and 58 percent agree with them. [Quinnipiac University]"

realitycheck ✉
Nov '11

RC - wrote in two different posts -


"A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found that 82 percent of New York voters are O.K. with the protests, and 58 percent agree with them. [Quinnipiac University]"


"occupy wall street movement has the support of 2/3 of Americans"

Thank you very much for the context and the source, (i think i heard this on the radio the other day as well)

personally i don' equate 'new yorkers' with the rest of Americans or America, i do not believe that the 2/3 figure will hold up across all 50 states.

i still think corp america and its cozy relationship with congress (both parties) needs to be re-examined, and that part of the message i fully support,

BrotherDog ✉
Nov '11

Erik, I didn't say you "were"...I said you "were being". The difference to me is, one comments on you, the other comments on your behavior. When I said "silly", I was careful to say it was the comments made, NOT the person. I apoligize if that was not clear.

It was never my intention to make anyone feel bad. Also when I said "silly" I honestly thought you were being less than serious because it was never my intent to say ALL the protesters were violent.
After I realized where you were comming from, I attempted to clarify my comments to ensure that I did not mean to be "inclusive" of all the protesters. (that would have been silly on my part :-)

You stated you are getting upset. This is also evident by the name calling (troll, dishonest). For that I am also sorry. Again, it wasn't my intent.

In my last post, I clarified the purpose behind the rehetorical question. It was not at all to imply they didn't have a cause. It was to imply that the cause get's poor coverage by the the larger media outlets. Sometimes that happens because of the violence and crime that takes the headlines.

I hope now you understand where I'm comming from. I hope now, you are no longer upset.

Kind Regards.

PSU in Jersey ✉
Nov '11

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/16/ows-protesters-calling-for-day-of-action-following-loss-of-camp-in-zuccotti-park/


*******Later in the video, he then goes on to say “No more talking. They’ve got guns, we’ve got bottles. They’ve got bricks, we’ve got rocks…in a few days you’re going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s.”

The official movement is calling for only non-violent action during its marches and rallies on Thursday.***

Macy's and it's many employees is the enemy now I guess....

LV Mom
Nov '11

Sure.....now LV Mom believes the liberally biased commie pinko network media..... See, there can be Change You Can Believe In...:>)

But OWS really ought to get a muzzle for some of these people. Burning Macy's to the ground to protest Wall Street somehow just doesn't seem to be an appropriate action. Much less a Molotov Cocktail. Non only very unAmerican but are cocktails the favortie drink of..........Wallstreeters? Macy's is barely financially standing as it is, not exactly a Wall Street beacon of light..... OWS can't be against parades obviously; might it be the large cartoonsh balloon characters? Are they against Rocky and Bullwinkle?

mistergoogle ✉
Nov '11