the point is to prove that the power should be in the hands of the people and not a small elite group of people that have more financial power to manipulate, bribe, and coerce bills that support their agenda. Congress and the president are employees of the american people not the other way around. When you change your thought process then you realize that they are also not above the law that they persecute others with.

@Jade

That's why the anger should be focused at politicians, not corporations. You really think corporations are all powerful with politicians? Then how come corporations can't get rid of the EPA, which costs them billions every year? How come bankruptcy laws allow individuals to discharge their debts to corporations, even if later in life they start making $150K a year? Why is it that the law requires so much be disclosed in a public corporations annual report?

I think all of these laws are good ones, but they tend to prove corporations just don't have all that much political power.

Corporations own the politicians. Why else do you think the laws are geared towards them and not "we the people"? That makes them more powerful than any of us.

Ironically this financial support is coming from the very people whose control they are protesting.... good ole George Soros is providing the main course and Huffington Post the dessert. Silly kids! I wonder who will take out the garbage?

Do you really think ANYONE, corporations, or individuals who worked to get wealth are going to start throwing blank checks out to these idiots just because they are carrying signs, and sh!itting in the streets?

I think not.

There is NO point to what is going on.

It is one big child's game.

And it will end badly for them all.

I know, the Koch Brother's did a much better job with the teabaggers. They had buses to take them and their guns from rally to rally. None of this stupid organic grassroots crap.

The point is not to create disorder. The point is to bring attention to all the myriad issues caused by big corporation's interference in government. There are people pushing solutions inside the system, but they can't be implemented because of interference in Congress by the large corporations. Here's one solution: break up the biggest banks. It's not in the nation's interest to have these too-big-to-fail behemoths around, and we'd be a lot better off if they were broken up. But politicians will only do that if they feel the heat--they have to believe they'll lose the next election if they don't.

The protesters are frustrated with a lot of things in our society and economy. The protesters are still venting that frustration and anger. The OWS is still in the 'mad as hell' stage - that's why there is not a unified, coherent message. That is also why there is a general appeal to just listen.

It took 50 years for the John Birch Society to create the TEA Party. The Birchers went through this phase, too. OWS is not going away. OWS is not going to be ignored.

Goals of Occupy Wall Street:

1.

2. Searching for goal 1.

Something not considered by these protesters and those endorsing them is that so far NYC has spent millions in extra police wages, etc., money they do not have and may very well be taken from social programs for those in need. Money does not grow on trees. Even if these protesters receive contributions, who is to say how well that money will be spent. I guarantee you that is when the most dissent will appear. But mostly I think protesters should not be costing a city a huge sum of money in order to keep from seeing chaos ensue.

So far I have heard the protesters demand free education, 20 hr/minimum wage, forgiveness regarding school loans, demand the government provide jobs, and one also the desire to end the need for money which they insist is corrupting all. However, if they accept money donations, isn't that hypocritical?

These individuals have no idea what they want.

Ask 20 of them what the goals are & you get 20 different answers.

Sound like a bunch of communists, but who knows...

I always wondered what communists sounded like...thank you for enlightening us, someone would sound like an idiot if they were calling everyone communists without any real proof or without any obvious understanding of what communism is.

Not for one second did I think there are several things one could potentially be mad about and lead them to protest. Who knew that in order to protest you had to make sure everyone else that happened to be protesting (especially considering its thousands and thousands across numerous cities worldwide) was protesting the exact same thing you were.

But hey...that's just me.

i don't mind the protest to each his own but they will never get anything to change until lobbyist are no longer in Washington but that will never happen either

This was all predictable (and predicted) when the murderer-war-starter-in-chief was running for office. This is the runup to the martial law or crisis panic that forces the next election into the Democratic column when they either:

1. Pull a rabbit out of a hat and get all their trained monkeys (school-age dupes of the teacher's unions) to quietly go home for a few weeks.
or
2. Declare martial law and a "temporary" "delay" to elections for the "time being" for the sake of "law and order."
3. Find some way to paint their opposition, with the assistance of the MSM, as having "caused" all the chaos in the first place, and having overreacted to it in the second, and having not been generous enough, in the third, to have caved in to all the nonsensical demands on the lists being compiled by the most immature members of society who have never yet in their lives had to make any efforts just to feed themselves. In this scenario, the MSM will make sure that the legions of immature do not notice that the Democrats are every bit as guilty, or more so, in bringing about the things that will be trumpeted and demonized in the communist monologue of the press.

Do I understand that someone out there needs to know what a communist is? In other words, the person asking that question has never bothered to go to the library to learn the answer to that question? And also has the impudence to come here and "demand" an answer as though there were none to be had, simply because that person is too lazy to go look for it?

1. They want an end of the family. An end of marriage, and parental responsibility for their own natural children, who they demand must be raised by the homosexual teacher's unions. This is because the whole reason for Karl's crazy idea in the first place is that he wanted to create a world free of rebuke for his (and Engels') homosexual preferences, which rebuke he was incapable of withstanding, leading him to devise a plan for murdering all those who speak it.
2. They want and end to religion. This is for the same reason as 1 and serves the same purpose by the same means.
3. They want an end to private property because they were pathologically jealous of those who had anything they themselves did not, and saw private property as enabling others than an all-powerful state to exercise discretionary power, which they wanted to deny in even the smallest way to everyone in the world simply because they could see no other way for themselves to exercise it in an absolute way.

What sort of delusional sociopathic egotism it is that causes them to take it as somehow a self-evident truth that they are not only more qualified to exercise discretionary decision-making power than any other human beings, but ENTITLED to be the sole center point from which such power emanates is impossible to determine. It plainly cannot be derived or deduced through any rational, moral, or sociological process. It appears, quite frankly, to be a simple matter of demonic Luciferian PRIDE.

So now, little children, that you know what a communist is, and what it is they seek, perhaps that will make their sneaky dishonest behavior a little easier to fathom. And to further understand their demonic strategies and Machiavellian tactics, one could do worse than to notice some of the things that Lenin did and said, such being too numerous and lengthy to go into here. Let suffice for now that he taught his followers to lie, steal, cheat, and create conflict through immoral actions, to sow discord and hatred at every turn, to damage and destroy, and generally to engage in any sort of wrongful behavior that would tend to instigate social strife and civil war. You see, communists are that very peculiar sort of animal that fancies creating a happy, cooperative society where everyone is equal and pleasant to each other because they all helped bring about a "worker's paradise" Utopia by scheming, lying, killing, betraying, and destroying everything and everyone they could get their hands on.

Don't you see? Once Marx's goal has been achieved, everyone is suddenly going to abandon scheming, lying, killing, betraying, and destroying everything to live happily ever after. Because . . . (well, no one has figured that part of it out yet.)

So they send in young people to do their dirty work because young people (a) believe themselves invulnerable, like Superman, and (b) are stupid and gullible enough to believe the lies. That's why old men have been sending young men off to war for generations. This is particularly typical of this latest generation, raised by the teacher's unions to swallow every lie they've been fed if only because it gives them an excuse to resent their parents even more than they already do.

(Perhaps one solution is to make the kiddies go live with the teachers until the teachers get to the end of their patience and begin to act like parents when they, too, have to face the screaming and slamming doors and start refusing to give little Lucy everything she demands while she continues to slob around and demand, demand, demand.)

It's natural for adolescents to begin chafing with their parents. But when the homosexual teachers are there (by government fiat) to give them candy and free passes to behave like animals, it is equally natural for them to become sycophants to the greatest of all evils embodied in the most evil of all things, a homosexual communist teacher.

Karl Marx said that he admitted to being "guilty" of the crime of wanting to destroy the family, and to destroy marriage. He had decided that this was the only way to prevent the wisdom of the ages being passed on to the next generation, and therefore the only way for his demonic followers to seize control of the minds of the impressionable to mold them into something resembling his own. The demonic, barbarous, treacherous, murderous, vicious cruelty of the character of every communist regime that has ever been identifies that mindset. That so many could so blithely ignore the plain history of the world to overlook all of this villainy is to a great part the legacy of the dedicated communists who still lust after world domination, and still continue to pervert the minds of the impressionable through the agency of their teacher's unions.

That anything such as a "teacher's union" should be giving aid and assistance to those who are breaking the law, NO, THEY ARE NOT EXERCISING A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ASSEMBLING PEACEFULLY WHEN THE OCCUPY THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS FORCEFULLY, is an outrage. The lack of outright war and violent conflict is to the credit (thus far) of the great patience and forbearing of law enforcement. When a burglar enters forcefully and occupies a person's home, it is not peaceful behavior, even if the homeowner does not immediately respond and provoke the latent violence in the violent criminal who broke in.

All of this is preliminary chaos to set the stage for the next level of Marxist-Leninist totalitarian seizure of absolute control. How disillusioned these babies are going to be when they discover that they were merely "useful idiots" to usher in the age in which, not only did they NOT get the things they were squawking about, but they DID get what they NEVER wanted--a totalitarian state in which they have to stand quietly in line and get government permission just to eat lunch.

Or spend time out in the dungeon.

The teacher's unions should be vilified by every decent person of courage from henceforth. Let its' members never again show their faces in public without being reminded of the HUGE BIG ROTTEN SHAME that they are.

Every single one of them.

'What about the innocent ones' you ask? Oh, you mean the cowardly ones who didn't speak up and condemn the actions of their fellow teachers and their union for fear of losing their jobs?
OK. Show them some mercy. Just spit on the ground, then, every time you pass one of them.

@CCRyder, you've got it all backwards.

The point is to bring attention to all the myriad issues caused by big corporation's interference in government.

The problem is the government's interference in the free market. You may have a point that corporations have too much power, but answer me this. Who is more culpable, the person who OFFERS a bribe, or the person who ACCEPTS a bribe? Corruption is the purview of government alone.

If you have a problem with a policy, protest the people who make the policies! The fat cats who got us into this horrible mess are in Washington D.C.; not on Wall Street.

Exactly! Politicians couldn't be bought if they weren't for sale, put the blame where it belongs. At least lobbyists are working on behalf of their constituents, are the politicians???

@p111 -- The way capitalism works is that when there is demand for product, the market will supply that demand. 'Free enterprise' economics is capitalism without moral or ethical controls.

Wall Street had a demand for corrupt politicians - the market supplied that demand.

The point is there is already disorder.

John, I think your tin foil hat is on too tight. You’re reaching pretty hard there to draw all kinds of wild conclusions.

We have a problem where a few people have way too much influence in the system. The rest of us are trying to call attention to that. Yes they are exercising a first amendment right. As long as they are not threatening anyone with harm, the police have no right to stop them.

Please don’t spit on the ground,,, it’s really not very sanitary.

I guess the only way to get arrested on Wall Street is to PROTEST AGAINST MONSTEROUS GREED, cause ENGAGING IN MONSTEROUS GREED sure won't do it.

Alas, America--once upon a time, long ago, she was a representitive Republic, but no more, now she's a greed-based oligarchy<TRUTH.

I hope not one big, bad corporation ever hires one of these losers!

Allmill2:

I know, the Koch Brother's did a much better job with the teabaggers. They had buses to take them and their guns from rally to rally. None of this stupid organic grassroots crap.

By "organic", are you referring to the fact that these losers are sitting around (which is what the generally do), doing drugs, having sex in public and not bathing?

This is one case when "organic" is not good. These losers need to go home and get a job - and actually contribute something to society! All they are contributing to right now is damage to local business, filth to the streets and stench to the air.

What's really ironic is that like the protestors of the 60's, a lot of these people too will become the big, bad corporate people. That is unless you think you can work at Starbuck's for the rest of your life!

@Nerm_L

Wall Street had a demand for corrupt politicians - the market supplied that demand.

All the more reason to shrink government, don't you think? If government lacks the authority to intervene on anyone's behalf, there will be little incentive for anyone to send lobbyists to D.C.

1. I keep hearing it's the government's fault for regulating too much or having too much of a say so in the free market... How so? Isn't Wall St. the least regulated its been since the great depression? Regan began the deregulation, and every president since has hopped on that train. We had 50 years of stability in our financial market, and than, 10 years after deregulation began we had a crises every decade. So please, someone, explain how the financial crises is a result of too much regulation.

2. We have a whole ruling class of political and financail elite. The folks we elect, the folks who appear as "experts" on the 24 hour news cycle... These are the folks that should have solved this issue. They didn't, and the victims of their failure to do so are the folks protesting right now. Why must they have a solution??? Now they're the people who get conned, than have to bail out the guys who conned them, and figure out how to keep those guys from conning them again??? While that 1% gets to scam people with no consequences, make a load of cash off of it, and not have to worry about solving their own ethical issues???

3. Pure capitalism works no better then pure communism. A totally free market, without government oversight ends up an oligarchy. An economy that's built on lead based paints that they manufacture through child labor, or asbestos ladden drywall laid by cancer ridden suckers. Of course we need the freedom to reap the fruits of our labors, but human greed is such that that freedom will be horded by the "haves" while the "have nots" get the shaft. All you have to do is feed those "have nots" enough fear and propaganda to keep them believing that if we just deport all the Mexicans they'll end up millionaires. In the mean time, the "haves" buy every thing from the presidency to the SCOTUS, and chuckle over their $1000 bottle of brandy.

OWS = Fair Taxes + Fair Regulations + Fair Opportunities + Unbiased Media

1) Whenever government intervenes in the free market, it distorts it. The laws of supply and demand are finite and immutable. Whenever government tries to "repeal" them through regulatory action, it inevitably winds up picking winners and losers. That is not the government's job. It is up to consumers to pick winners and losers. If an organization provides superior value to the marketplace, it should win; not the organization that the government prefers to win because corporate special interests, or the labor unions are paying them a boatload of cash to legislate in their favor.

2) What the left refuses to accept is that people are able to determine their own needs for themselves infinitely better than either the political and/or financial elite. They are also better able to protect themselves. I don't defer authority over my own life to an "elite" and don't expect others to either. The piece the left seems to miss about liberty is the responsibility that goes along with it. I too, am angry that the government bailed out banks and automotive manufacturers who had earned their failure because of their policies or management. It was the GOVERNMENT who intervened and took $$ from Americans who had done nothing wrong and gave it to crooked Wall Street Bankers and other politically connected private interests like the unions. Protest the government! Honest competition is hard! I'm sure corporations would prefer government to legislate in ways that keep them from having to compete fairly. The government has to be the one to say "No, we're not going to help you. I'm not taking your bribe. Go and compete fairly".

3) Freedom is not a commodity that can be hoarded by the "haves". The "have nots" are just as free to pursue their own self-interest and create their own wealth as anyone. It, of course, requires them to not be averse to working hard and providing something of value to the free market. It's easier and involves less risk to sit in vague, ill-informed protest, I guess. Capitalism works infinitely better than communism. How many communist success stories in history can you point to? Communism is the far left end of the spectrum of government intervention in the marketplace. The "haves" can only buy what is for sale and I am of the mind that the SCOTUS and the presidency should not be for sale. But since the government remains intent to intrude into the free market (which is self-regulatory in nature, by the way), those people who would benefit from that intrusion will attempt to influence them. I maintain that if the government lacks the authority to intervene, there would be no reason for lobbyists to try and shape legislation to their benefit and the OWS demands you espouse would be met. Fairness cannot be achieved through government intervention because government, itself, is unfair.

Tea Party = Small, constitutionally-limited government + personal liberty + free markets.

$ 300,000 brought straight to the protesters by Mr. Soros, Goldman Sachs, Chase, et al., the folks these protesters are voicing their opinion about.

Yep, Mr. Obama....the "Day of Rage on Wall Street" CANNOT be compared to Dr. Martin Luther Kings' movement. By you own admission, you support these protests which are completely unorganized and with an unknown mission. You may as well get on that $ 1,200,000 bus made in Canada and go about on your campaign tour(s) and tout your JOBS BILL. Maybe a quick stop in Elkhorn's CLOSED RV plant will help you out.

Paul, in a perfect world your description would be correct. But in the real world, most people who have a strong drive to succeed also are willing to take advantage of other people in order to get there. The most successful individual I have worked for was an out and out crook. He cut the pay of the people on the floor
and gave himself a bonus. He sold the company while I was working there and the things the new owners found out after they had control of everything were unbelievable.

People with wealth and power will take advantage of those who don’t have it. You say you can protect yourself, but if it wasn’t for a government with the power to enforce the laws, a very wealthy person or a large corporation would roll over you
without any real effort.

The only thing that gives us as individuals any real power against those with more money and power, is the rule of law and the strength of the government.

The song “I owe my soul to the company store” is based in fact and we can go back to that without some amount of control on the capitalistic system.

I respectfully disagree, MV. In order to succeed, people have to provide value to consumers in the marketplace. They have to compete for your attention and your business. In a free market, anyone can do this and thereby create his own wealth. When government intervenes it crowds out free enterprise and invariably tips the playing field in favor of its friends (cronyism). You need only look as far as the current Solyndra scandal for proof of this. It is unfortunate that your boss was a crook. But think about it for a second; because he was a crook, his business failed. That is the self-regulatory nature of the free market. The same can't be said of crooks in government. Crooked businesses go away. Crooked government does not. You always have the option not to patronize a business that is run by a crook.

How, exactly, do you suppose a wealthy person or large corporation can "roll over" me? A corporation or wealthy person cannot take my liberty. My patronage of any business is voluntary, based on the value that it provides to me. The government can take my liberty. That is the nature of government; coercion. You are, sadly, deluded to think that your strength lies in the government. Your strength lies in yourself. It is truly dangerous to abdicate to a government what you could and should be doing for yourself. Government is the opposite of liberty and power corrupts. That is why our constitution gave only very specific enumerated powers to the federal government. The scope of these powers have unfortunately been ignored and expanded improperly over many years. This should concern you. The nature of government is to consolidate ITS OWN power.

Paul,

First, I said pure communism DOESN'T work. My main point is, neither does pure capitalism. When you endow one side with all the power, it ends badly. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. If deregulation of Wall St. worked then explain why prior to the depression, when the market was totally free, we had numerous banking crises. After the depression we regulated Wall St. for 50 years without any crises. And now since deregulation began under Regan, we've had this...

• Late 80's = Savings & Loan crises
• Mid-Late 90's = Hedge Funds & .Com Bubble
• Early '00s = Corporate Fraud
• Late '00s = Housing Bubble & Derivatives

If corporations are "people" then do you believe that people shouldn't have any laws? There should be no guidlines we must follow in order to protect those that inhabit our world with us?

It isn't capitalism to fraudulently convince people to enter into mortgages they can't afford, then clump those bad mortgages together, sell them off under the guise of "good AAA investments" and then bet on them to fail. And when that bet turns out to be a little too spot on, take the tax money paid by the very people you defrauded to save your own behinds. That's, at best, negligent and at worst criminal. The scams that cause these crises has nothing to do with the free market. They are the product of human greed, allowed to run wild. Do you deny that people are greedy?

Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, along with the other computer geniuses, that's the free market. They were innovators, who used the opportunities they were given, and through their hard work were able to capitalize on a new, evolving market. That's capitalism. Do you see the difference? The regulations we want put in place would have stopped the scenario in the paragraph above, but would allow the Jobs and Zuckerbergs to still achieve success.

Self regulatory in nature? Can you please provide an example of the big banks regulating themselves? If that were true, then why does the preponderance of evidence and history show that those times when the market was least regulated created the crises, while the 50 years we had regulations there were none? An easier solution then getting rid of government would be to cease believing that money is speech. That would get rid of the lobbyists also.

Income and wealth disparity are at the greatest levels since 1929. Corporations are recording record profits, yet where are the jobs? This isn't class warfare, this is class cooperation. The bottom 99% overwhelmingly has done our part. We've paid a greater percentage of our income in taxes, we vote, we follow the laws, we go to school... The upper 1% now refuses to cooperate with us. They pay less in taxes while they continue to get super rich, forclose on our homes, cease to provide jobs, buy our democrasy, and then when the dookie hits the fan, they take our money to save themselves.

And really...

Tea Party = Small, constitutionally-limited government + personal liberty + free markets.

It always gives me a chuckle when TP people say this. Personal liberty??? So it isn't an imposition on your freedom for the government to tell you who you can contract with, what you can do with your body, which religions can serve in our government, and that you have to carry papers and prove your citizenship??? That's liberty to you, but making sure banks and cooperations don't run rampant over the middle class is "too much". And don't give me that line about, "Real Tea Partiers don't believe in those things." Yes you do, that's why we've seen surges for nut jobs like Perry, Bachman, and Cain. If you all didn't, if you all really practiced what you preached, Ron Paul would be winning the primary right now.

P.S. The Constitution doesn't limit freedom it gaurentees it. The only amendment we've ever had that limited a freedom was prohibition and we all know how well that worked.

P.P.S. Sorry I keep getting interrupted. Therefore, how would you change the contistution to shrink government? The government we have is already laid out by the consitution, what else do you want to limit them on? Are thinking about adding amendments? Taking them out? I always hear this from people, but nobody ever explains their case.

Sarah,

If you can point me to an example of IMPURE communism that is a raging success, I'd very much like to know about it. In any kind of communism, power rests solely with the government so it can distribute resources according to what it decides is "equitable". In capitalism, by way of contrast, power rests with the people and resources are distributed according to what the free market dictates. Most all economists agree that this is the most efficient way to distribute goods and services in a society. Since we seem to agree that power corrupts absolutely, you must also agree that government is something the people need to be protected from. When government grows, liberty must contract. That is the whole purpose behind our constitution; to protect the citizens from their government.

prior to the depression, when the market was totally free, we had numerous banking crises

First of all, nothing even vaguely resembling libertarian, free-market, fundamentalism has ever existed in the banking industry in this country, so your assertion that prior to the depression there was no regulation in banking is patently false. In fact, when you examine the industries in which there have been massive scandals, you'll find they mostly happened in the most closely-watched, highly-regulated industries: including telecoms (WorldCom), energy/utilities (Enron, NorthWestern) and banking (too numerous to mention). It is not a coincidence that these most scandal-plagued industries are the ones where the government is most involved. It was only the companies in highly-regulated industries that the government bailed out with TARP and the Obama stimulus. According to the self-regulatory nature of the free market, these companies should have failed and stronger, better-run companies would have taken their place. That didn't happen. The government intervened and bailed out Wall Street. The government precluded the free-market from working in this case, you see? The government stepped in to save the very institutions that the OWS is protesting against. Why is it not the government that OWS is protesting?

Interestingly, the computer industry you mentioned as an example of spectacularly successful free-market capitalism (I fully agree, by the way) is mostly free of government involvement and regulation. Coincidence? I think not. It is very rare that someone seemingly arguing against me, makes my point so beautifully. Thank you! It is also worth noting that Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg have amassed huge fortunes through their efforts. The OWS protesters are opposed to this kind of "greed", right? Please understand that it was through the pursuit of their own self-interest that society has benefited so greatly from Mr. Jobs and Mr. Zuckerberg's innovations. Look how many jobs were created! These guys didn't start their companies for some high-minded ideal, they started them to make money. If this is the kind of greed you say is the root of the problem, I wholeheartedly disagree. The problem we have is not that we have too many millionaires, it's that we need more people who want to become millionaires and will do what is required to make that happen. If more of the 99% would direct their energies toward doing that, our problems would be over. But, as I've said, it's easier and involves less risk to sit in vague, ill-conceived protest.

Also, you should understand that the mortgage crisis that we are all suffering through is entirely government-created. Both mortgage lenders and borrowers had the responsibility to understand the risks involved with what they were doing. Lenders ignored the risks inherent in what they were doing, because the government was subsidizing those risks through entities like Fannie and Freddie, while President Clinton's community reinvestment initiatives punished banks that didn't assume riskier, sub-prime mortgages. Think about that for a minute; the government punishing banks (highly regulated, remember) for doing their due diligence. How could it have NOT ended badly? Borrowers stupidly believed that their property would continue appreciating in value by 20% per hear for eternity. How is that NOT madness?

And honestly...

OWS = Fair Taxes + Fair Regulations + Fair Opportunities + Unbiased Media

I got a chuckle out of this as well. The list of demands I most frequently see from the OWS protests doesn't even remotely resemble yours. What, exactly, do you want the banks to do? Taxes and regulations are set by the government, are they not? That's where OWS is confused, I think. They have identified the wrong boogeyman (corporations) and want the wrong remedy (MORE government). Government is the problem, not the solution.

Regarding your P.S.'s: I completely agree that the constitution doesn't grant freedom but protects it. If something I wrote suggested otherwise, I apologize for my lack of clarity. I should clarify, though, that although we were born with freedom, we can still lose it. It is wrong-headed and dangerous, I think, for the government to offer to bludgeon the wealthy on behalf of the non-wealthy in exchange for their votes and their liberty. It is just as wrong for freedom loving people (wealthy or non-wealthy) to want that from their government.

Re: the U.S. Constitution, I think the document we have is sufficient to limit federal power if it wasn't routinely ignored. The problem is that the federal government frequently acts in excess of its constitutional authority. That is why the Tea Party is upset. Government needs to be restrained so that it fits back into the confines of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution where its enumerated powers are defined. According to the Constitution, authority over everything else rests solely with the states.

Paul, and I must respectfully disagree with you. I believe that you are deluded in thinking that capitalism is self-regulating. It is not, because people aren’t self-regulating, neither are the businesses that we start.

I never said my former employer’s business failed. I said he sold it. He did quite well for himself and retired to Florida. The business closed under the new owners because so much had been purposely hidden. Yes, there was a lawsuit but the former owner still made out very well in the end.

This is the problem with pure capitalism, the most aggressive, the most willing to take advantage of everything and everyone succeed and are lauded for their accomplishments. Unless they are caught and brought to justice by a strong central government made up of the collective will of the people.

Unfortunately, our government is not representing the vast majority of the people. It has been co-opted by the rich and powerful. Maybe we have finally reached a tipping point where We the people will force the elected officials to really do their job. But I’m not convinced yet.

If you want a weak central government and libertarian paradise, I suggest Somalia. That’s afine example of what you seek.

We can agree to disagree, then. My point is, the business failed. The free market regulated the business out of existence. Someone bought it from the crook without thoroughly examining it to see if it was a viable going concern? That was unwise on their part, don't you agree?

The businesses that last long term are the ones that provide superior value to consumers in the marketplace; not those who somehow victimize consumers as your experience seems to support. It takes hard work, and considerable nerve to stomach the risk involved. That may look like aggression to some. Your liberty, however, is still intact.

Winston Churchill said "Capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others". I am inclined to agree.

I want the country that our founders envisioned for us, and codified in our founding documents. The steady march away from them and toward the liberal/progressive utopia of the left has brought us to the brink of ruin. You'd better get used to the idea of the pendulum swinging back the other way.

And I for my part will have to pray that your version of what you think the founding fathers had in mind never comes to pass because it will be the end of our representative republic and the beginning of an oligarchy ruled by financial war-lords.

An example of unrestrained capitalism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44938030#44938030

Pure capitalism is as destructive as pure communism. I believe the best system is capitalism with some boundaries and controls.

The story of my former boss only illistrates that someone who has no problem lying or stealing will succeed just as likely as someone who follows the rules, maybe more so.

(Sigh)

This is yet another example of what I'm talking about.

Your video is heartbreaking, to be sure, but it is most definitely NOT an example of unrestrained capitalism. It is an example of the effects of government price controls in the pharmaceutical industry. When governments (mostly foreign governments right now) remove the profit from the equation for the pharmaceutical companies (who incur MASSIVE costs in order to develop and produce medicines to benefit society) shortages like the one in your video occur. Then the prices for the drugs that ARE produced go up, per the law of supply and demand (which governments can't "repeal" through legislative action). Shortages don't happen in pure capitalism, because companies are compelled by the profit motive to produce as much product as there is demand for. Do you understand?

Take a look at this VIDEO and maybe you'll get it.

I believe the best system is the one where government polices fraud and other criminal behavior, but leaves the economy alone to function according to the immutable and finite laws of economics. Whenever the government tries to impose its will on those immutable laws, bad things like your video example happen.

Paul,

Banking Crisis prior to The Great Depression -

• The Panic of 1819, 1832, 1836,
• The Depression of 1837-1843
• The Panic of 1857
• The Depression of 1869-1871
• The Panic of 1893
• The Panic of 1901
• The Panic of 1907
• The Great Depression

The first regulatory statute enacted was the ICC of 1887 and The Sherman Act of 1890. However, these were not very effective. Lawyers, auditors, and brokers worked for the companies, not the potential investors. State laws were ineffective for regulating interstate commerce. The federal laws were still inadequate.

So, you can see that prior to any regulation, we still had at least 6 major banking crisis in about 50 years.

After the Great Depression, when we got FDIC, FCIC, NIRA, SEC, yada, yada, yada. We were ran great, with no real crisis until... In 1972, Nixon closed the gold window and The Bretton Woods Agreement (global financial regulation) collapsed. By 1973, we had our market crash. When Regan came into office deregulation began for real, and financial crisis have been an every 10 year thing since. And, can please provide an example of "self regulation" by large financial institutes?

Interestingly, the computer industry you mentioned as an example of spectacularly successful free-market capitalism (I fully agree, by the way) is mostly free of government involvement and regulation. Coincidence

Yes, you are right, but did you miss the part where I said this...

The regulations we want put in place would have stopped the scenario in the paragraph above, but would allow the Jobs and Zuckerbergs to still achieve success.

The "paragraph above" pertaining to the fraudulent and shady dealings of the too big to fail financial institutes. Like I've said, this isn't about stopping the free market, it's about stopping the rape of the free market, those that would take advantage of Capitalism. They are the threat to the American Dream. Do you believe that any behavior, no matter how fraudulent or exploitative, is okay if done by a corporation or a bank? Why should we not ensure that they play by the rules?

Can you quote me where I said "impure communism" works? I said that "pure" anything doesn't work. You can't logically deduce from my stating that pure capitalism doesn't work, that I must then believe impure communism does. Huh??? I said that, you cannot allow either side to run free, be it government or the private sector. Logic thereby dictates I believe you need both. A market where hard work and fair play brings success, needs to be free of those that would take advantage, which can only be accomplished through regulation.

You keep saying the government is too big and that it's over stepped its Constitutional boundries, but you haven't showed me how that's so. How has the government out grown Article 1, Section 8? I agree that in some cases they have gone to far. Things like DOMA, The Patriot Act, and on the individual state's parts "papers please" laws, union stripping, and voting restriction laws. However, those are all supported by the Tea Party. The same Tea Party, I might add, which you claim is all about personal liberty. I'm sure OWS has some walk job "truthers" and NWO people out there, but all movements do. To judge us by the extremists is as unfair as my saying, "The Tea Party is full of racist, old white people who want to criminalize homosexuality and enslave women." The greatest way the government has screwed me over however, was when they allowed themselves to be bought by Wall St. Get Wall St. and money out of politics and you'll see that the very purpose of government is to serve the citizens. That can't be said, under any set of circumstances, about Wall St. or the private sector. The private sectors is essential, but inherently self serving, so why should I trust it over my government, which is created with the sole intent to work for me? The only thing that's stopping that right now, is the self serving private sector.

Both mortgage lenders and borrowers had the responsibility to understand the risks involved with what they were doing.

You're right, but how is your average Joe Blow going to understand the risks inherent if the professional bankers are lying or defrauding them. A fiduciary relationship needs to be in place between borrowers and lenders. Period.

Nobody's trying to punish the banks or rich people. We're trying to set up a situation where they cooperate with us, and where bad, greedy behavior is deterred. I don't understand why some can't differentiate between those. It's the same as tort law. No one gets punished in tort law, but the system is there in order to prevent bad behavior and restore the victims of bad behavior back to what their circumstances were prior to the tort being comitted.

Sarah,

It seems that we are in agreement that banks are not unregulated interests and have been that way since the late 1800's. So tell me, if government regulation is the magic bullet you seem to think it is, to what do you attribute the banking crises that you cite? And then, how do you explain the awesome successes you mentioned in the computer industry which has remained free of government regulation?

The regulations we want put in place would have stopped the scenario in the paragraph above, but would allow the Jobs and Zuckerbergs to still achieve success.

Can you be a little more specific about what these regulations would look like, exactly? How would these mythical, magical regulations you imagine accomplish putting an end to the abuses you mention when you've already admitted that 200 years of regulatory activity on the part of the government did not preclude the most recent crisis from happening?? Enlighten me, please! You say we had a period during the Great Depression when things "ran great". Is it maybe possible that the lack of scandal during that period is more attributable to the U.S. unemployment rate at the time that still exceeded 20%? I would imagine that not much banking activity was happening in the first place because of those economic conditions.

A market where hard work and fair play brings success, needs to be free of those that would take advantage, which can only be accomplished through regulation.

What do you mean by "take advantage"? Businesses are supposed to be seeking competitive advantage. That's the way a free market works. Businesses are supposed to be seeking competitive advantage in order to serve the needs of their customers better. You could argue that Steve Jobs "took advantage" of the inefficiency of typing pools when he made the apple computer, couldn't you? He put a lot of typists out of work. Is he all of a sudden the boogeyman too? It is when businesses look to the GOVERNMENT for an advantage that we wind up in trouble. Because the government can't be fair. As I've mentioned earlier, the government invariably winds up picking winners and losers in the marketplace and the winners are always the most politically well-connected, not necessarily the ones that provide the most value to consumers. That's cronyism and it's why government has to get out of the marketplace and let the free market economy function. It was the politically connected bankers that received bailout funds from the government. Again, according to the rules of the free market, those banks should have failed and stronger, better-run institutions should have taken their place. THAT's the self-regulatory nature of the free market; badly run, crooked companies go bankrupt and disappear from the marketplace. As you already know, that didn't happen! The GOVERNMENT kept that from happening. The government gave companies that earned their own failure a pass at taxpayer expense.

We're trying to set up a situation where they cooperate with us, and where bad, greedy behavior is deterred

We've already got that, Sarah. Maybe you should take a look at THIS VIDEO too because you don't seem to understand the system you are protesting against.

The private sectors is essential, but inherently self serving, so why should I trust it over my government, which is created with the sole intent to work for me?

The government is ALSO inherently self-serving or it wouldn't have grown beyond its constitutional boundaries in the first place. And unlike a company or corporation you don't like, the government can't be ignored.

Have you read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution? Anything that is not on that very short list of enumerated powers belongs exclusively to the states. Government has ignored these limitations and grown itself because the people didn't see a problem. Then when TARP, the stimulus and Obamacare happened, people started asking "Wait! Can they DO that??" and the Tea Party was born.

To reiterate, from what I've been able to gather, the OWS protestors have identified the wrong boogeyman (corporations) and want the wrong remedy (MORE government). What they seem to hate (at least the one's who don't favor radical re-distribution of wealth and the end of capitalism) is cronyism; and in that respect the OWS protests and the Tea Party's interests align.

You're right, but how is your average Joe Blow going to understand the risks inherent if the professional bankers are lying or defrauding them.

We already have laws against fraud. There is no need for additional regulation to supplement them. If the government is selectively enforcing the laws of the society in ways that benefit its cronies, then that is just one more argument against increasing government, right? Starting a business and working hard to make it successful is not some sort of crime for which the society needs to be compensated.

Paul,

And then, how do you explain the awesome successes you mentioned in the computer industry which has remained free of government regulation?

The computer industry is an example of what happens when ethical geniuses have a free market to work in. That doesn't mean everyone on Wall St or running a corporation is either ethical, a genius, or both. That's the difference. Otherwise, I can flip your question right back on you, if there are sooo many regulations, how did the computer industry succeed?

So tell me, if government regulation is the magic bullet you seem to think it is, to what do you attribute the banking crises that you cite?

Did you read the whole paragraph??? First, we had at least 6 banking crisis in 50 years, prior to any regulations existing. We then established the ICC and The Sherman Act. The ICC attempted to regulate the railroads, and the Sherman Act busted monopolies, however the attorneys, writers, and auditors worked for the railroads and monopolistic companies, ergo they were self regulating, and needless to say inadequate and ineffective. We continued to have numerous panics and crisis untill the great depression, when we established more strict regulations. For the 50 years those regulations were upheld we didn't have a single crisis. A year after deregulation began, the market crashed, and then when deregulation continued, so did the crisis, almost one every 10 years.

Is it maybe possible that the lack of scandal during that period is more attributable to the U.S. unemployment rate at the time that still exceeded 20%?

Ah, no I didn't. I said things ran great after the depression untill deregulation began. Go read it again.

Can you be a little more specific about what these regulations would look like, exactly?

Sure, to begin, a fiduciary relationship between borrowers and lenders. Currently, the borrower has the detrimental reliance, but the lender doesn't have the ethical/legal duty to not take advantage of that reliance. Second, investigation into new markets, such as derivatives, prior to Wall St. professionals being allowed to invest other people's money into them, as well as disclosure about the risks inherent in the market and consent from the people who's money or mortgages are being invested. Third, making "too big to fail" into "too big to exist".

You could argue that Steve Jobs "took advantage" of the inefficiency of typing pools when he made the apple computer, couldn't you?

No, you couldn't. I'm not saying that no should ever be laid off again. This example shows how an ineffeciancy in the system was fixed, taking advantage of someone is encouraging a person's faith in you, then using that faith to achieve a selfish goal, regardless of the consequences to the person you used.

THAT's the self-regulatory nature of the free market; badly run, crooked companies go bankrupt and disappear from the marketplace. As you already know, that didn't happen!

And how many average citizens, working hard, voting, law abiding, going to school, and investing would be screwed over before it "self regulated"?

As you already know, that didn't happen! The GOVERNMENT kept that from happening. The government gave companies that earned their own failure a pass at taxpayer expense.

Yes, because to not do so would mean a global finacial crisis that would make what's happening now look like bupkiss. However, if Wall St had remained regulated by the government, "too big to fail" would never had been an issue, let alone, existed, and this whole situation could have been averted.

The government is ALSO inherently self-serving or it wouldn't have grown beyond its constitutional boundaries in the first place

How so? What is this self serving purpose you speak of? If you take out the needs of the citizens, wouldn't government cease to exist? If you take the needs of the citizens out of the private sector it still exists because business are built by men/women in order for those men/women to profit, which they will want to do regardless of their neighbors needs. Which is fine, success is essential for human motivation and freedom. Government is basically a social contract between citizens. The consideration being that we'll all play nicely together, and that by doing so we are all ensured life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people we elect to the government's whole purpose is to uphold this contract, however they are currently being bribed by the private sector, to breach the agreement, allowing some on Wall St. to not play nicely and buy all the happiness they want, while others that do live life the right way, don't get to collect their happiness. Get Wall St. out of Washington, not Washington out of Wall St, and what reason would the government have to not serve the best interests of the citizens?

Have you read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution? Anything that is not on that very short list of enumerated powers belongs exclusively to the states

Yes I have, many times actually. You keep making this assertion with giving me any specific examples though. Give me a specific example of government overstepping the bounds of Art. 1; Sec 8. Have you taken civics 101, because this issue isn't as simple as "That list of powers." The consitution is a document which is interpretated, and implemented in changing ways. And no, those powers not designated don't belong exclusively to the states. When the 10th Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment extended the federal Bill of Rights and made it applicable and enforceable to the states. Ergo, the 10th amendment doesn't hold much power anymore, and is the wrong thing to be quoting in regards to the boundaries of Art 1; Sec 8.

We already have laws against fraud. There is no need for additional regulation to supplement them

That would be true if all banks and corporations played by the ethical rules. Right now we see these entities as "people" but there aren't any applicable laws to govern them. Those laws would be regulations, and they would extend the laws you speak of to cover these institutions, as well as hold them liable for misdeeds. Wall St. is so big, and so powerful, that the torts which provide responsibility and protection for small business and citizens can't be upheld, enforced, or even applied to it.

I'm glad I think like Sarah (but on a much lower level) - damn girl, you are good :o)

I think you gave me a "logic" orgasm....lol.

Thanks Drain!

Sarah,

I'm enjoying our discussion too :)

I can flip your question right back on you, if there are sooo many regulations, how did the computer industry succeed?

If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I specified that the computer industry succeeded because it was in an industry that is free of government regulation. Lack of regulation was largely responsible for this success. Highly regulated industries like banking and utilities are the most prone to scandal and crisis.

we had at least 6 banking crisis in 50 years, prior to any regulations existing.

So by your calculations, we should be on our third or fourth scandal in the computer industry, right? The industry was born in the early eighties. Hmmm, no scandals. How come? Could it be because the government has kept its clumsy, incompetent hands off? I think yes.

I said things ran great after the depression untill deregulation began.

Again, how'd we wind up in a depression in the first place? It was YOU who pointed out that the banks had been regulated for over 100 years prior to the depression. If regulation is such a good thing, why does it keep leading to all these awful things?

Second, investigation into new markets, such as derivatives, prior to Wall St. professionals being allowed to invest other people's money into them,

What you fail to understand is that derivatives are financial instruments that were created in response to regulations that were already in place! So bank regulation actually CAUSED derivatives to be invented. That is the problem with regulations. They always have unintended consequences that no one foresees, that usually lead to another crisis. Your analysis of the banking industry having gone from crisis to crisis since the 1800's is a pretty clear vindication of that point.

if Wall St had remained regulated by the government, "too big to fail" would never had been an issue, let alone, existed, and this whole situation could have been averted.

I think we already established that Wall Street WAS regulated, so to say "if Wall Street had remained regulated" is curiously inaccurate and disingenuous. There was not a time in 100 years that Wall Street wasn't regulated. You seem to be talking in circles. Despite the regulation, some would even argue BECAUSE of the regulation, "this whole situation" happened. So a simple look at history should convince you that more government intervention is not the answer.

The banks that received a taxpayer-funded rescue were politically connected special interests; big campaign donors. By virtue of the fact that they needed to be bailed out in the first place, they were not the strongest banks in the marketplace. The largest? Maybe. The strongest? No. According to the rules of the free market they should have failed, and stronger, better run banks would have taken their place. The government did not allow that to happen. Government was protecting its friends from the consequences of their own recklessness and mis-management; using taxpayer money!!! They were not doing you or me any favors. They were practicing crony capitalism; the opposite of free market capitalism.

If you take out the needs of the citizens, wouldn't government cease to exist?

Wow, this is troubling...How responsive do you think the governments of North Korea, China, or Iran are to their citizens? You've got it completely backwards. Government is not about meeting the needs of citizens. Government is concerned with curtailing the liberties of its citizens. Government and Liberty are polar opposites. There is a role for government to play in our society, I think. But it is much smaller than the role it currently attempts to play. Citizens in a free society like ours are have the freedom and responsibility to meet their OWN needs. A free market helps them do this. Nobody knows your needs better than you do. It's senseless and inefficient for the government to take money from you and then turn around and try to buy you something it thinks you need. You know your needs better than the government possibly could. It is actually the private sector who is more concerned about meeting your needs than the government ever could be. The private sector, as I've said, is compelled by the profit motive to provide products and services that meet YOUR needs at a price that YOU are willing to pay. The success of a company, therefore, is a measure of its service to customer's needs, not its own greed. Take a look at that video in my last post again. I think you missed the point.

Government is basically a social contract between citizens.

Wow! Um, no. The nature of government is not to contract, it is to subdue. George Washington himself said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." I am inclined to agree.

Government needs to be restrained. That is why the founders enumerated EXACTLY what powers the federal government is to have in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The document doesn't need to be interpreted, it needs to be adhered to. And if the document is found to be wanting in some respect, it may need to be changed to reflect the society as it changes. The founders had the good sense to include a process for doing that. It is called the amendment process. To try and divine meaning in the Constitution that is not readily apparent from the text is a blatant subversion of founder intent. If it needs to be changed or clarified, amend it. To imply things it doesn't actually say is wrong.

A good example of federal overreach is the U.S. Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind debacle. The federal government lacks the authority, according to Article 1, section 8, to set education policy. The federal government has no business doing it. That should be done exclusively by the individual states for their citizens.

That would be true if all banks and corporations played by the ethical rules. Right now we see these entities as "people" but there aren't any applicable laws to govern them.

That's not even remotely true, Sarah. As I've already expounded in detail, the rules of the free market apply to corporations and they are much more interested in meeting your needs than the government is. The government has no motive to meet your needs. When government intervenes things get dicey. Any law against criminal behavior like theft and fraud already applies to corporations. The CEO's of Enron and WorldCom are currently rotting in prison. Enron and WorldCom, you'll remember were both players in heavily regulated industries.

Steven, Stop and think about what you just said.. "privately owned park". How does a park in NY city become "privately owned", who sold the park to this private company, how, why and when? Does it mean that the public has to pay a fee for sitting on a bench in the park, is Central Park also "privately owned"? Think about that for a minute.

Did you know that the Mayor girlfriend just happens to be on the board of directors of the private company that "owns" the park?

how about using the money to pay for the additional police force. Which could be reduced (police force) if the protesters would obey the rules. They are using mob mentality. If masses do something illegal then its ok. I wonder how soon before a few bad apples show up and incite the protesters into destroying property.

I sure as heck would like to know which politicians strong armed the owners of the privately owned park. They should be charged. And yes the Mayor has openly stated his girlfriend is on the BOD. Which is why he hasnt taken a strong stance on the protest. Only that they have a right to protest.

The park space is donated for public use by the owners and I am assuming the cost to maintain it is up to the owner. They actually can choose to not allow the public on that property. Why is this hard to understand?

Maybe if the private company that 'owns' the public space was that concerned - it could work a deal with the OWS to keep the area clean and the company would haul away the trash. Working together to obtain mutual benefit. That is loosely one of the ideas behind the OWS protests. The uncompromising stance of the private company (do it my way) symbolically highlights some of the societal problems that OWS is protesting.

OWS is not burning cars or breaking windows. OWS is not attacking bystanders (or spitting on bankers or congressmen). They are 'jaywalking' and occupying a public space. Yes, the police are there for crowd control but the police are also there to protect the crowd. Security is supposed to be one of the primary functions of a government.

"police are also there to protect the crowd"

Thank you for make me laugh, that is the most idiotic comment. So, the 700 and more arrest where to protect the crowd?

300k is nothing , they have more that to keep running this show for so long. Unions, community organizers , Moveon.org and other leftist organization are behind this movement , and Soros has millions of dollars to dump.

I suspect the police overtime and other costs will largely be recouped from the fines and court fees which will be paid by the hundreds of protesters who've been arrested.

Disney World is a privately owned park. Go protest there and see how long you last.....

Nerm L, the OWS is only out for mutual benfits it they are the ones benefitting, I've noticed they have no problem with the $'s that Unions donate to politicians what a double standard, let make a campaigns publicly finance you know like Obama pledged his campaign would be then reneged on it. You get a set amount depending on what office you are running for and that is all you get. No money from any other sources and each candiate gets the same amount equal enough for you.

Another right wing lie, Obama never promised that his campaign would be publicly financed. The far wrong seems to love to make promises for our President.

Yes, he did make promises that he hasn't been able to fulfill, but what president hasn't?

Except that's absolutely not true.

It is true. How much did GE make in profits last year. How much did they pay in taxes. Google it.

Except for the proven fact the many corporations pay no taxes because of their accounting gimmicks.

I've seen those reports, and they were probably written by all the C students in my accounting class. The annual tax bill of a company is privileged information, only the IRS and GE know it. The line on a company's 10-k for taxes paid is a transactional number that doesn't relate to its actual tax due for the year.

The likely reason that transactional number is negative for last year is that they overpaid their taxes from the year before. The IRS requires corporations to pay taxes based on estimates of profit for a quarter. At the end of 2009, most corporations that had pension liabilities were required by law to fund them to a certain percentage. That funding would have been an expense in income tax terms that wouldn't have been included in their quarterly estimates when they paid their fourth quarter taxes. So, in 2010, they would have received a considerable refund for their overpayments in 2008, since they suddenly had billions of dollars in liabilities that were suddenly deducted. As the number on their 2010 10-k is a purely transactional number, it would reflect that overpayment in 2009.

In addition, GE has huge green energy initiatives that the government supports through tax benefits. This has nothing to do with overseas profits, nothing at all. This has to do with it being more politically palatable to pass a tax benefit than to pass an expenditure. The government got what it wanted from GE, and had to pay for it.

@mark-1751582 -- The corporations are not really using accounting gimmicks. What they ARE using are provisions in the tax code that corporations lobbied into place. It may not be moral or ethical but it is legal.

That is why protesting against the government is meaningless. Corrupt government is only a symptom of corporate greed. Wall Street is cathedral where unfettered GREED is worshiped. Wall Street is the source of the problem - not the victim.

So Nerm

I guess that's why corporations were able to get rid of the EPA so easily, because they own the politicians right? Oh, wait...

GE is a publicly traded corporation they have to show their books that much is required. The people are not totally voiceless that's why there's an EPA and that's why there's an OWS.

@Alex W-3017978 -- How much did General Motors 'earn' from their patent on catalytic converters? EPA required every auto sold in the US to have one. For every business that claims to be 'hurt' by EPA - there is another one quietly profiting from those nasty regulations.

You think those nasty regulations are not used to control competition? Or corporate liability? You think there are not private lawyers that build big bank accounts on regulatory litigation?

I just checked on Google about G.E. In 2010 GE earned $5.1 Billion and paid $0 on taxes. Yes that's right.....they paid no taxes at all.

This is the beginning of the end of this "movement" for them. Protesters should donate the $300,000 they raised back to NYC for all of the problems they have caused. It would be a good downpayment, the overtime for this mess is more than the money they have raised. In the end, it's always about the money. They're cryin' about the money they don't have, well now they have it, the only question is: What are they gonna do with it? God only knows. Good luck with that one.

The first Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Just exercising their first Amendment rights. The cops and politicians are starting to look like Syria's Assad.

@ Nerm

I'd imagine they didn't make anything since the patent for the first catalytic converter was given to an individual in the 1950s and ran out long before the first laws requiring them in 2001.

ipan: The IRS audits the tax returns of essentially every large corporation every year. The corporations will try to minimize their tax burden as the law allows just like all of us do and they will need to justify all payments between affiliates to be sure that they reflect reality. the IRS will not allow a corp to just decide on the transfer payment amounts, they have to be justified.

Many of us on the right agree that the tax code is ridiculous with too many loopholes and believe they should be closed. If we had the sense to stop reelecting the same career politicians over and over we might be able to change that.

Alex, you are on the right track, a lot of the reason GE did not pay tax is that they had massive losses in the financial crisis as they make loans to businesses and individuals, and many of these loans defaulted. These losses are applied to gains in other years.

The protesters have every right to assemble and say what they want, we have every right to point out where we disagree with them.

I am particularly amused by the suggestion from these people that loans be forgiven. Great morality, borrow something and refuse to give it back. Of course then the banks go under and depositors lose their money. I bet the depositors are these kids' parents who are covering their bills. Then no more loans ever, so good luck starting a new company or building a plant that might employ them.

Is interesting how President Obama support OWS demand corporations and rich pay more taxes in one hand and by the other hand , GE a company that outsource jobs to China , pay zero taxes, receive stimulus money and the CEO is Obama's close friend , adviser and political donor. mmmmmm Obama 2012

Is this protest having a negative effect on the people who live there? If a group were to protest wrecking your parks and slowing down traffic for weeks would you be annoyed?This is also costing the tax payer more than the movement is taking in money wise ..so they are infact leaching off the community.

@Alex W-3017978 -- Take it from someone that was there - you are flat wrong. Chrysler had developed an alternative that met the EPA standards but GM got the BAT award. Chrysler lost the development costs PLUS had to pay royalties to GM. That little business coupe boosted GM stocks for quite a while.

That piece of trivia only illustrates the influence that big business exerts over all functions of government. The GREED of big business has created the problems with government - not the other way around. Protesting against government will not solve any problems and will not change anything.

Alex... hate to tell you, but catalytic converters were required on all passenger vehicles (not trucks) starting in 1975.

@ Norm still takes corrupt government for that to happen. Also everything everyone is complaining about was a socialistic act not capitalistic.

@David conservacrat -- Corrupt government did not create corporate greed. Wall Street does not recruit bankers from the stable of government policymakers - Wall Street infiltrates government with bankers to make policy.

What exactly do you think 'business friendly' government means? When was the last time you heard a politician call for 'people friendly' government?

@Nerm

Do you have a source for the requirement of a specific type of catalytic converter, rather than one that simply meets an emissions standard? Because according to the current rules from the EPA, it is purely a standard of emission, and any device that can meet that standard is certified, regardless of which corporation owns the patent to it. www . epa . gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/cap2000/cap2k-r . pdf (spaces around the periods to ensure it's posted)

Sidecar, you are right, I misread my source. But that doesn't change that GM didn't invent the catalytic converter or have the original patent for it.

A lot of you are making the same basic mistake, trying to point the finger at which group is responsible for all of the problems. As you can tell from your various remarks, they are ALL responsible for this mess. Business, government, Wall Street are all jackals feeding off the same carcass. One hand washes the other. Corporations and banks bribe politicians who make laws that make corporations and banks richer so they can pay off politicians in larger and larger amounts. They relationship between them has to be dealt with or it will never change.

People with no jobs have to do something, they can't just sit and pick their a$$ like a politician..

Norm let me get this straight the only bad greed is corporate greed? Government isn't greedy or power hungry? Thinking you must have ate too much fermented grape nuts

Alex (3.13)

Catalytic converters have been on cars sold in the U.S. since 1974 and on all U.S. sold cars since about 1978. The time difference is due to some models being able to make pollution standards without them.

Bruce, I already stated I was wrong on that, but as it doesn't affect my premise, that Ford didn't own the general patent to the catalytic converter, it's irrelevant.

If you need further proof that government isn't simply beholden to corporations, look at any of the pro union laws, or bankruptcy laws, or OSHA, or minimum wage laws.

A peron can take a corporation to court to recover loses or damages..the controller of being allowed to do so is government...if government does you wrong who do you go after? The government has control and if they say you cant recover loses or damages from government actions that caused you a loss where does that leave you?

So let me see if I understand. Catalytic converters are responsible for all the woes of this country?

@David conservacrat -- Current tax cuts, loopholes, and other tax breaks amount to around $1.2 trillion per year in uncollected revenue. Does that sound like greedy government?

Conservatives have been crying about a $500 million loan to Solyndra that defaulted. Did the owners and private investors become richer or poorer from that loan? Does that sound like greedy government?

There are around $200 billion in subsidies per year provided to various business sectors. That is more than the budget cuts per year that the Super Committee is supposed to generate. Does that sound like greedy government?

Government is only the symptom. The unfettered greed that is influencing all levels of government policy is creating the problems in government.

@Alex W-3017978 -- Sorry, I cannot find a reference. As I recall Barry Goldwater took EPA to task about the issue but I cannot find any specific info on the internet.

Back in the 1970s EPA held competitions for Best Available Technology. The BAT terminology has gone through several iterations so today's definition is not the same as during the 1970s. The winner of the competition was designated as the only technology that could be used to meet emission standards. Alternative technologies were not allowed - the BAT technology was it. The laws and regulations have since changed to allow more flexibility in meeting the standards.

Just tuned in....been watching the NLCS. I can't believe that some lefty brought up GE's failure to pay taxes. GE is a direct extension of the Obama whitehouse. CEO Jeff Immeldt is on one of Barry's economic commissions. Why don't the protestors take their inane signs to GE....or better yet, to the whitehouse?

All taxes are paid at the consumer level. All taxes are nothing but a cost item and it is passed in the prices charged to the consumer. So tax away! Tax away. THe fair tax is the only way to rid us of this type problem because it rid us of LOBBIEST! This is a blind tax just like our justice system was years ago. Everyone pays.

@Nerm

If that's the case, that's obviously a problem, but without things like committee notes or more background it's impossible to know the rationale behind that approach. Arguing that its favoritism resulting from bribery is kind of a big stretch, sounds to me more like the clunky implementation of a new agency.

It certainly doesn't by itself support the proposition that government is unresponsive to the vox populi. I think there are plenty of pretty clear examples that the government does respond. They've responded pretty quickly to the tea party, why wouldn't they respond to the OWS'ers if they were protesting the government in DC? I just don't understand the purpose of protesting private individuals.

1.2 trillion a year? Last official report I seen claimed that about 10 years of the Bush tax cuts thing is a tax rate increase DOES IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM mean more revenue. Bush actually had more revenue in a weaker economy than Clinton did by a wide margin. Having a high tax rate changes what people do with their money and simple fact of the matter compared to the rest of the world we are over taxed and that is a reason why corps leave the US.

@Alex W-3017978 -- So far the battle hymn of the TEA Party has been to cut government spending. The emphasis has been on entitlements and social safety net programs.

While reducing budget deficits is a worthy goal - the approach has been to attack the vox populi and protect the greed influencing government policy. The TEA Party, so far, may be of the people but are not for the people ...

Eliminating Medicaid or discontinuing unemployment programs are not vox populi policies. Notice those policies are justified by stating that the wealthy need protection from taxes and costs. Lawmakers spend their time in committee hearings with businesses that sell things but there have not been any hearings to listen to people that buy things.

The TEA Party have been influenced by greed. The TEA Party are not going to respond to the issues being raised by OWS.

@ Norm Yes it does sound like greedy government they can print more money and manipulate the markets for power and politicians do favors for business all the time for political gain..what rock have you been living under for the last 15 years? Hell Paul Krugman was an Enron adviser LMAO

You can take the top 400 richest people in the USA(all the billionaires) money 100% of what they owned it still wouldnt cover this years debt (300 billion + short) and you would run out of the rich to tax....

@David conservacrat -- $1.2 trillion in all the deductions, incentives, and tax cuts per year. There are currently six tax brackets for Federal income tax. Do you actually believe it requires 2,000 pages of tax code to explain six tax brackets, corporate tax rates, and capital gains tax rates? The bulk of the tax code outlines how to avoid paying taxes - through deductions, write downs, deferrals, incentives. Someone has lobbied for methods to avoid paying taxes. Greed might have influenced that lobbying ...

The Federal government is not collecting half of the revenue level called for in the tax code.

It collects over 2 trillion dollars a year and spends 40+% more and again why would government just magically put rules in for SOMEONE ELSE"S GREED? AGAIN a tax rate is not gauranteed revenue and being unsustainable seems to mean very little to leftists trying to crash the system...

@David conservacrat -- OWS is not protesting government. That is not the cause of the problem. An interesting source of info about disparity in the US economy is the IRS income tax statistics.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

The latest data is for 2009. All taxable income (excluding solely capital gains) amounted to $6.85 trillion. The data shows that 72% of all income tax returns accounted for 38% of the taxable income. 29% of all returns accounted for 62% of taxable income. For the bottom 72% the average taxable income was $37,800. For the top 29% the average taxable income was $$154,900.

Basically the income of the top 30% is four times the income of the bottom 70%. Note this discussion is only about income - not taxes.

Which group can exert more lobbying influence to reduce their taxes? How many pages of the tax code are devoted to the top 30% of incomes?

Oh so now you are trying to say government is so dumb it doent know its being manipulated and allows the lobbying for no good reason for themselves? How did Bush collect 300 to 500 billion more a year in taxes in a worse economy than Clinton when Bush had a lower tax rate?

@David conservacrat -- Inflation alone would increase revenue. Who profits from speculative inflation?

A debtor nation

@David conservacrat -- Who does the government owe that debt to? Is that debt made up of Savings Bonds locked away in safe deposit boxes? Or is that debt sitting in bank vaults - bought and sold on Wall Street? Who is profiting from that debt?

The debt was created to feed private sector contractors, private sector service providers. Even the bulk of entitlement outlays go to private sector businesses. And private sector banks are profiting from the debt. Public risk - private profits created the debt.

Like 1920's and 30's Germany?

We owe other countries like Japan and China states even go in debt paying for public sector things.....

too bad SS isn't saved huh?

So Nerm government doesn't make the rules and isnt in control?

Corporations and government are one and the same. Name one politician that does not have corporate ties and is not wealthy.

You won't find one because your government is chosen for you. Who you will be able to vote for has already been decided and handpicked from various corporations. Corporations ARE the problem and because of this I am not so sure we will ever be able to correct it. They are the lawmakers. We have nothing but votes that don't really count until we can get corporations out of our government once and for all.

Hey, Sweet hart, I am a corporation and I am not that way. Hey, I am also Black.

To me our government is the problem and corporations feed and clothe (rather largely I may add) them. Our government if it weren't so friggin dysfunctional would have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Koch brothers up for trial and on the way to prison. As long as these blights of society are able to keep doing what they are doing without any consequences...well why would "they" change.

I'm sick of all of them. Someone ask President Obama why for Gods sake are we sending troops into Africa. We need ANOTHER war? And ask him while you're at it why we are considering building a water plant in Mexico. Last time I checked there is still a thing called gravity that would make sea water from Northern California, Oregon or even Washington flow down to be desalted. And while you're at it tell him we don't want Bush family, Cheney or Koch brothers to do any of the work and own yet another piece of OUR America. Ask him when something will be done with the illegals and our borders closed. It's way past time for Obama to do something rather than sit back and play this friggin game of chicken with the few elite who own America. This is NOT a game to the 99%.

If Rick (puke) Perry says he would use an executive order the first day to get things moving what's Obama doing sitting around?

Protesters...God bless you. Keep it up and keep it strong!! None of this business as usual from either party is working for any of US.

Eris2010 said:

Corporations and government are one and the same. Name one politician that does not have corporate ties and is not wealthy.

Name one person on this thread who doesn't have "corporate ties" and is not wealthy. If there is one, that hippy needs to start using the library computer to find a job instead of wasting time on newsvine. If you've had a job, you have "corporate ties."

I used to work as a contractor in oil refineries. Does that mean if I go into politics I'll be forever labled as as a right-winger that has ties to the oil industry?

What if I tell you I dressed in a suit with a Bush mask and snorted lines of sugar off the sidewalk during the 2000 elections as part of a Green party demonstration? Does that mark me as a left wing extremist, or just someone who thought it was a bad idea to have a cokehead (sorry... "alleged former cokehead") as president?

How about if that was after I finished a 6-year enlistment in the Navy? Does my military service get me labled as just another cog in the military-industrial complex?

But I've also driven one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the planet (2000 Honda Insight) for the past decade and recycle obsessively. Am I back to being a lefty?

My point is: people are complex. You can't just say "he's rich and has business ties, therefore he shouldn't be in government."

Interesting...communist party USA supports OWS?

Government never recedes, it always continues to maximize power and influence as checks and balances dwindle away. People are always willing to give up freedom for perceived security. Democracies fail as people learn they can vote for special favors at the expense of others. Now, set this in context with a financial system that requires debt as the means to create money through a fractional-reserve banking system, and those controlling the financial system, control government. The system ultimately has to fail.

Historically, we knew we were leaving problems to future generations. We are that generation.

This seems to be a very interesting movement, involving people with a wide range of political beliefs, coming together because they sense something is not right. In general, the sound bites played on the news programs do not display any coherency. Sometimes Wikepedia is useful, and here is an overview of the movement.

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

Look, money in politics is the central issue. Corporations buy and sell politicians and write our laws. If you are sick of this, there are two things you can do about it right now that WILL make a difference if enough people do it.

1) Sign the petition: www.getmoneyout.com

2) Reject the two-party system: www.americanselect.org

A third party that is a viable and real alternative the the other two can certain run in this country it's the winning that is questions but in this climate I say a good third party may have a chance.

234r

You are so full of it I have been working for over 35 years and never have nad any corporate ties.

Caligula-1763025

What two party systems, they act like one party we only have the bad and the ugly, as far as parties go.

But that is not the point of this. Corporations and government greed, yes the Gov. Pass laws that aloud cor. to pay far less taxes, so the government does not have the money it should but the "Law Makers" that put those laws on the book made a lot of money from the corporations that will profit from them

Caligula and GA Girl,

I agree on the need for a third party, but unfortunately I feel the percentage of people who will continue voting (R) or (D) is still going to be way too strong for any third party to overcome in this election cycle.

The key is getting them over 5% of the vote and planning for the next election. The 5% mark is enough to ballot access in most states during the next election. That would allow the party to focus more on getting their message out and less on the struggle to get on the ballot.

Part of the problem with obtaining that percentage is that your "third party" vote isn't going to a single party. The vote is going to be split between Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Pirate, Americans Elect, Tea (if it ever becomes an actual party), and whatever OWS turns out to be.

Another part of the problem: if 3rd parties start to look like they'll gain significant votes, the two major parties will likely adopt (or at least pay lip service to) their stances on any hot-button issues. This will keep a decent percentage from defecting.

The way the U.S. political system is set up also is a major barrier, and one of the reasons the Tea Party has gone about trying to change the Republican party from within instead of forming a new party. If a TPer goes as a 3rd party instead of (R), the (R) vote is fractured. If the (D) only has support from 35% of the voters, they can still win if the other 65% is split evenly between the (R) and TP candidates. It makes much more sense for them to go head-to-head with an (R) in a primary, then get full backing against the (D) in the general election. If Americans could rank candidates (1st, 2nd, 3rd choice), this would be much less of an issue - but good luck getting the parties in power to agree to that change.

Myself-539965 said:

234r

You are so full of it I have been working for over 35 years and never have nad any corporate ties.

Self employed/farm/family business? Congrats. I stand corrected. I didn't fully think through all possible forms of employment.

Would serve no purpose to target the corporate puppets in Washington when the puppet masters on Wall street are the ones pulling the strings

@234r...

It has to start somewhere.

That's why if we if we all work to ban all corporate and pac contributions, pass strict limits on the amount of self-financed money could be used for all federal elections the game would be changed immediately. But how do you get the corporate paid politicians to go along with this? You don't. You focus all resources on third party candidates who pledge not to take corporate and pac money who some day might have a chance at passing the laws necessary to get money out of politics.

You don't think people are finally pissed off enough to make this happen? I think we are already seeing the seeds of a revolution...I hope it can be done electorally before it comes to real civil unrest and violence...

Americans Elect WILL be on the ballot in all 50 states. Candidates have yet to be solicited...that part is coming...but right now it is the only REAL and practical hope of challenging the duopoly of doom...

234r, agree completly, it is in both the dems and repubs best interest to keep a third party out of legislative bodies. That is why moderate conservatives run as blue dog democrats and extreme conservatives run as tea party republicans, they can run for office under the D or R banner, then pursue their agenda once elected.

Caligula

Your theory is sound, but the practicality of it happening is remote at best. Rather than trying to create a third party or waiting for Congress to repent it's evil ways, the people themselves have an avenue to force immediate change in American politics, like right now.

The first amendment to the US Constitution empowers people of every state to enact people's laws by way of propositions, people's laws which are veto proof by any legislative body as long as they meet constitutionally scruitiny.

There may be several ways people may employ their legislative powers to bring about immediate change, but after more than twenty years of research, I have found two ways to limit money and lobbyist influence on American politics that I know will pass constitutional scrutiny.

#1;.....Enact a voter sponsored proposition which creates a state 'conflict of interest' law which forbids public elected officials, and, or candidates viaing for a particular public elected office which is empowered to officially represent a defined constituent area from accepting monetary donations from any source, other than sources who qualify as legal constituents of the defined constituent area the relevant public office is empowered to represent in whatever legislative body.

#2;.......Enact a voter sponsored proposition which creates a state law which requires newly elected officials who were elected to represent a part of, or whole of a particular state to sign a Constituent 'Good Faith' contract. A contract pledging to constituents not to accept any monetary donations from any source which does not qualify as a legal constituent of said particular office holder, and, to further pledge not to accept any trips or lodging not relevant, or associated with official duties from any source except the governmental body said public elected official is a part of.

The bottom line message I am trying to convey is, what ever voters elect to do to address the political corruption that envelopes American politics, their chances of success are far greater through state by state voter propositions..........Do not allow opponents the advantage of one stop shopping in Washington, make them fight the battles one state at a time.......And what ever state law people enact to address the corruption, be absolutely certain not to allow any exceptions which translate into discrimination......again, close the door tight, no exceptions

234r I happen to agree with you. Our democracy is set up for a two party system to hopefully legislate roughly from the middle so a third party will only take away some votes from one or both parties but probably won't win and will definitely ensure that one of the two parties will loose.

I think the essentials of our democracy ie. two parties are sound but the dysfunctions come in when one party is at war within itself which is the problem with the GOP/Baggers right now. The second problem I see with our democracy is that monied interests mainly do to the citizens united case have gamed the system until the legislated officials in congress not longer hear the will of the people. We as citizens must do the hard and unpopular work of stay engaged in the political even when it seems to less self serving of our own interest. We screwed ourselves in the midterm elections in electing a faction of the GOP which abhors government in its basic form and hopefully this is a lesson we will not soon forget.

Don't deflect the question. While few people question the protester's right to assembly, many people question what it is precisely that the protester's would like to see done. Sweeping statements like "fiscal responsibility" and "end corruption" aren't very actionable.

I guess you cant read "olddeaf"...the U.S. Constitution TRUMPS ANY "question". Let me reiterate for you...if you DONT like the way things are done around here, feel FREE to leave.

Actually the only people who don't know why they are protesting are not paying attention to what has been happening for the last 30 years.

I actually think that anyone who says the protesters need "focus", or need to have solutions or whatever are downright ignorant. It isn't their job to fix the problems, and everyone knows what the problems (especially on Wall St.) are.

Play stupid if you want.

They are breaking laws. That is my problem with it. They are following the rules of the park. They are blocking businessness and smoking weed (i'm sure they all don't have a medical license.) All the protesters that are breaking the law must be arrested.

free speech is good, breaking laws is totally different

Hey branxoz, it goes both ways. People have a right to say they think the protestors are as stupid as you are. If you don't like it, then take your own advise perhaps?

I'm all for free speech! Collapsing opposing views violates free speech, correct?

Ironically this protest is getting financial support the very people whose control they are protesting.... good ole George Soros is providing the main course and Huffington Post the dessert. Silly kids! I wonder who will take out the garbage?

I agree. That money comes from donors in small amounts, (i.e.--my $50). Let your voice be heard. Those who have a problem with the movement, Iran will take you and make you one of their own.

Following the Law of the Land as you put it also includes adhering to Private Property laws.

The protesters in NYC are occupying a private park. The company that maintains it used to clean the park EVERY single night. This means that every night, people that worked for the park were paid to go into the park, pick up trash, power wash the sidewalks, and maintain the park.

The company requested that the protesters leave for a few hours so they can clean the park after the protesters occupied it for 3 weeks and there were reports of trash, smells, and damage to the grass from tents being set up there for 3 weeks. The company stated publicly that the protesters could return after the cleaning but the protesters refused to leave.

A few points: First, the people that used to clean the park every night are exactly the people that the protesters are supposed to be supporting. People do not get paid much to be a custodian or power wash side walks or maintain the grounds, grass, and plants in a park. Those are working class Americans. When they are effectively being kept OUT of work, not being able to go to their job, they lose their paycheck. When they do not have a paycheck, they fall behind in the bills. That is ridiculous that the protesters do not respect that.

Second, maintainance keeps costs down. Daily power washing of side walks (especially in high volume areas like NYC) keeps the sidewalks clean, keeps the appearance how it is intended to look, and allows repairs to be made to sidewalks before they become a problem. The same goes with keeping tents off the grass. If you've ever been camping even for a few days. When you put a tent down on grass, especially after 3 weeks, if you remove the tent, the grass is all dead and you just have a giant dirt square. Furthermore, part of keeping things clean was to keep the trash down. When smells are emanating from the park, it just makes people avoid the area. Just ask the restaurant owners across the street from the protests. Their business has dropped 50% at least because people do not want to come down there to eat. So, my whole point is that the protests are costing private companies and individuals money. It will cost a lot of money to return the park to the way it used to be before the protests, assuming you can actually get the everything cleaned up since it was not maintained.

Lastly, I am for the right to protest as protected by the US Constitution. However, the City of New York is spending millions of dollars in police protection for the protesters paid for by NYC taxpayers. There is a much better use for that money...the protesters need to have the proper permits to be legal, even according the law of the land.

Once the protesters refused to leave private property when the company just asked them to leave for a few hours so they could clean up after them, the protesters instead of leaving and coming back refused, several were arrested, and they occupied against the wishes of the private property owner. Now, in the US, the law of the land would then say that they are trespassing on private property and once you acknowledge that, then the protesters are breaking the law and must be removed if you want to say that we should always enforce the law of the land.

To do anything other than remove the protesters from private property for trespassing once the property owner wants them removed is itself mocking the law of the land and makes one a hypocrite.

You cannot just pick and choose which laws you want to follow as many of the protesters seem to think that several laws do not apply to them. If you believe that you can pick and choose laws and only follow ones you agree with, then the whole fabric and rule of law in this country breaks down and you are welcome to leave.

I agree with branxoz and terriels; these people don't have lobbyists to defend their interests so this is what they'll be doing. In my congressional district and others, you can't get into a town hall if you're not registered with the "appropriate" political party - why wouldn't people protest? What else is left for us?

I sent 2 letters last year to politicians in my state; the Republican sent me a form letter reply (that stated he received it) and followed it with a phone survey to my house 2 weeks later, that repeatedly asked if I was in favor or repealing the "job-killing, socialist Obamacare takeover of the insurance industry" .... which had 0 to do with the issue I raised. When I wrote to my Democratic Senator, I got a form email with some quotes that I found lifted from the website of the largest employer in the state related to the issue. So, it's bipartisan dismissal of my interests and yours in favor of others with more influence. But there is always that great equalizer: 1 person = 1 vote ... at least that's what these people think and I say more power to them.

Hey pzph since you OBVIOUSLY cant read, or dont understand what the U.S. Constitution is, I am going to exercise my right to use the "ignore" author feature here. Do yourself and the rest of us a HUGE favor, take a reading comprehension, and/or a U.S. History class. Goodbye for the last time:)

good ole George Soros is providing the main course and Huffington Post the dessert.

George Soros has become the bogeyman to reichwingers. If they're against it, George Soros is behind it. Never mind the lack of evidence. It saves them the bother of investigating the true origins of anything they object to. Because we know the Koch brothers financed astroturf Teabaggers, they assume there's no such thing as a bona fide populist uprising.

These people don't have a clue what they are protesting, but if you want to disperce them just offer them a job and see how fast they will run. These people are all Obamas base and none have worked for years, they are waiting for you to share your hard earned savings with them.

I'd ask that those who assert that Soros is supporting the Occupy mopvement substantiate the assertion, but we know they can't. Dupes, they believe without question anything extreme Reich-wing FOX fanreich-wing is thoroughloy documented.tasyland tells tehm.

By contrast, the Koch borthers' support of the Reich-wing -- to which they have no objection -- is thoroughly documented.

Some people are concerned that the protesters are breaking laws. I wonder how many laws those "Masters of the Universe" broke when they crashed the economy? Those are the lawbreakers we should be concerned about, not people jaywalking.

the koch brothers bought and paid for, heritage foundation trained, tealiban are out in force trying to undermine the ows protest. hey wingnuts the protesters are against everything your for,but you already know that.

Runaway slaves broke laws too. I wonder if the Teabaggers here would have preferred slaves docilely obey massa'.

Hey branxoz, you have the right to peaceably assemble, not to break the law. You have to obey the same laws that I do. People are entitled to their own opinion, so why don't you just give it a rest already, huh? Nobody has to go anywhere, we are all God's people and we all have a right to be here. You may not agree with another's opinion, but that gives you no right to tell them where to go or how to get there. Why don't you just say that you don't agree with their opinion? That's much closer to the truth than what you're saying.

nagarya

Just google and you willl see how many articles about moveon.org helping OWS. You are a lier, because moveon belong to Soros.

It is very clear....we are the 99% says it all. If you are not a millionaire then you completely understand what it is about. The attack on the middle class, poor, women, unemployed, education, uninsured, etc. The politicians are bought off by people like Grover Norquist to vote for his best interest instead of the people who the politians are elected to represent. Money is controlling this country instead of the people's best interests.

I am sure those that don't like the protesters protesting, would not have liked our founding father's rebelling either. How disrespectful of them to fight a war for freedom from England.

What Sam Spade never bothers to mention is that the Koch Bros. have a miniscule amount of influence when stacked against investment and banking industries who are laying it heavy on Obama. Of course, Soros' tentacles easily outmatch those of the Kochs in leftist propaganda [ THINKPROGRESS, MOVEON, MEDIAMATTERS, etc];then too, the media passed along its own lies picked up from the above leftist sources who played fast and loose with the truth in stating that the Kochs were actively involved in direct funding to the Tea Party, which is false. Indeed, to date, the most in single amounts comes from David Koch, at one million dollars, but this went not to the TP, but to the Republican Governors Assn, while Koch funding that the Washington Post accused of going to the TP directly, instead went into the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is not the ''tea party'' but only a portion of its composition which is dwarfed by Soros'funding of leftist and liberal foundations and direct political action groups in any event.

The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics accurately breaks down the fundings alloted to issues, groups, candidates, and lobbying and finds that the Kochs blow more on direct lobbying in energy at the congressional level and again, not the ''tea party'' while Soros blows far more on 527s and interest PACs.[ those such as America Coming Together, worth 7.5 million in Soros dough, used this funding to directly influence the outcome of the Wisconsin recalls], thus the liberals and the left dishonestly paint the Kochs as ''interest group'' funders [TP] when it is the more accurate to observe that it is Soros who most fits this role as it concerns political interest groups, and provides monies in this region at many times that of the Kochs.Or,

Both Koch Brothers [ 2010]:1,472,000$

George Soros [2010 ] 32,706,000$

Lastly, OWS cannot display much muscle when it is forced to garner the lions share of its quite pitiful 300 grand [ less than what Obama will make at one fundraiser dinner], from, of all things, a billionaire who works in gaming currencies and world markets, and was a one-time adviser and purchaser for the CARLYLE Group..

The Center for Responsive Politics www.opensecrets.org ''Capital Rivals: The Koch Brothers and George Soros''.

@JRS-619990 -- You realize the main point of your argument is that 'freedom is not free'?

OWS is not carpet bombing NYC to 'liberate' the masses and 'give' them a chance for democracy. There have not been any hellfire missiles or truck bombs. OWS is causing some annoyance and inconvenience. Democracy, as defined by our Constitution, can be annoying and inconvenient sometimes.

As you point out - 'freedom is not free'.

They do not know what they are protesting. Perhaps a Cuban like society would be to their liking. The only problem with that is they would 1) not be allowed to protest. 2) not have Facebook, or an IPad, a cell phone or laptop. 3) no meat with their beans.

I am amazed at how spoiled American children are. As the child of legal immigrants I have been taught and have learned that hard work and education pays off.

Yes it is hard to find a job with a face tattoo or 10 piercings or the inability to pass a drug screen. Personal responsibility something these American brats have never been taught.

This Nation was founded on the right to free speech and assembly. If anyone has a problem with this, JUST LEAVE America, or petition to have the U.S. Constitution changed. Either way QUIT whining about it, and deal with the fact these people are WELL within the law of the Land.!!!

People who complain about OWS are well within their rights. This nation was founded on the principal of free speech.

It is also founded on the principal of fighting for what you believe in...ever heard of the Revolutionary War?

JRS-619990
Following the Law of the Land as you put it also includes adhering to Private Property laws.

The protesters in NYC are occupying a private park. The company that maintains it used to clean the park EVERY single night. This means that every night, people that worked for the park were paid to go into the park, pick up trash, power wash the sidewalks, and maintain the park.

Get over it! This country wouldn't even exist if our forefathers "played by the rules." Exactly, who makes the rules? The top 1% make the rules and pay a lower tax rate than the working class. Think back. Eisenhower had a 91% tax rate for the nation's wealthiest. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and every Democrat had higher tax rates on the nation's wealthiest.

I'm 60 years old and have had my "piece of the American Dream." College was affordable for our generation and we weren't harnessed with massive student loan debt. The jobs? I always was able to have a decent profession and was an employer. I never treated or exploited employees as they are treated today.

I attended a rally in my town and the folks were great. They simply want their voice to be hard and have a shot at what we had---and mostly squandered.

Let the nannies find another park for a while.

Yes, the protestors are costing New York more money than was brought to them by donations. And yes, the company that owns the park stands to lose a lot of money in repairs resulting from damage and lack of maintenance.

However: I counter this with the fact that had the banks not been bailed out with billions in TARP funds and other Keynesian money, then most likely all of this would not have happened. Instead of making more loans and negotiating with debtors for more reasonable terms, they foreclosed on people's homes. And to add insult to injury, the banks took that TARP money and "invested" it in commodities, like gold, silver, oil, gasoline, FOOD , and on and on. Then they have the balls to demand that people be stripped of retirement and that food stamps and medicaid be de-funded so they can get even MORE money.

The road that ends in the Lake of Fire is paved with good intentions. And sadly, some people in office just make bad decisions, like they did in 2008. The chickens come home to roost eventually.

People can complain about OWS all they want. You realize, don't you, that Sarah Palin only became popular, and held the spotlight because she was controversial. That is, people complained about her. Every complaint is just more coverage for the movement. Every word you people say just adds to the resolve of OWS in the short run, and credibility over the long haul. The rabid shreaking from the Right just tells us all that OWS has hit the right nerve (pun intended).

The longer OWS goes on, the more people that are arrested for what most people consider trivial infractions, the more money will roll in, and the more people will become involved, and finally the sharper the edge of the sword will become.

As for the people wondering why they are not organizing around a single point, it's very simply because they are already organized against an entire way of life, much as the North was opposed to the Southern way of life. Morality is the cornerstone to this movement. As long as it remains the cornerstone, their goals will remain unimpeachable. Let them sell out, like the Tea Party did, and they lose credibility like the Tea Party is.

And even if OWS is not the tool of change, they lay the seeds of change. Just as John Brown failed in his high-hoped mission to free the slaves, he planted the seed that did, eventually free the slaves and overthrew the South's wicked way of life. Plantations and slaves are very close to what we have now in America already. A very few sit back and make their millions off the sweat of people that just barely make it along, not just in America, but in every one of their sweat-shops overseas. In the end, Morality and Justice will win, or the United States of America will fade from history as a failed experiment.

Decide which side you will be on. 99 out of 100 of you are working for 1 person that is a plantation master, even if you think you have a great thing going. That 1 person can bring you to ruin at a word, leaving you writhing in the mud with the rest of the poor. So choose your side.

So if I led a group in protest that shut down part of a city blocking traffic and trashed property I have a right to do that? What about the 47% being a burden to the 53% that pay taxes?

@David conservacrat -- A MLB World Series game causes the same problems. Sometimes the crowds become unruly, too. Should the sports owners be charged for traffic control? Why is business favored but regular people are not?

They will always talk down the people who are against the establishment, it's in their name 'conservatives.' They want to conserve the current system because it benefits their main benefactors the most while ostracizing anyone else who is different than them in any way.

Ahh so a world series game causes this for several weeks wanting to spread riots country/world wide? How many baseball fans get arrested trying to block off a bridge yearly? Surely it is less than 800

Nerm do you think the fans at the world series games would mind paying for my ticket to get in? How about pay for my travel expenses and food? I'm sure I could get them to give me a dollar a peice to pay for my way..after all it is their fault I do not have the money myself because they have money that should be mine...

If you have evidence that George Soros is directing or funding the Occupy Movement, then post some links. Otherwise, it's just your opinion/guess.

Cities usually don't charge for sporting/concert/trade events because they are a boon of economic activity for said city. Flights in, hotels, eateries, etc. Protests usually aren't as much and cause a lot of cleanup. Paid event clean up is priced in the ticket.

These closing in on a thousand arrests don't usually happen at most events, except for the occasional drunk. Along with deficating on police cars.

I'm all for protests of any kind, it's a symptom of freedom. Is it a true protest if people are paid to go there? Every time i see a news clip it is something different coming out of people mouths as to why they are there. Including my favorite ......"i don't know" (guy with guitar).

MoveOn.Org=Soros not only that 2 of the top 10 political donors are supporting it SEIU and the AFL-CIO.....They are also paying people to be at these events.

My two new causes to send my hard earned money to. Obama and OWS!

I bet the locals wouldn't be too happy knowing their hard earned tax dollars go to helping store items for the protests....also teachers are giving extra credit to students who attend this....

It's call capitalism. You see if somethings if for sale and I have enough money to buy it then it will be sold to me no questions asked. Now if you want to change to a different system let me know and w will talk about it.

@laura-417908

It is also founded on the principal of fighting for what you believe in...ever heard of the Revolutionary War?

The OWS protesters would stab themselves with forks before they would actually pick up a gun to fight anyone.

Furthermore, the American Revolution was started to kick OWS types out of our country.

Furthermore, the American Revolution was started to kick OWS types out of our country.

HUH? Drewbot????? What do you know that I don't?

Uh Drew? The American colonists were rebelling AGAINST the aristocrats, not for them. Pick up a history book once and a while.

Pick up a history book once and a while.

Kind of like how people think that having regulations means you're a socialist. It's like, hey man, all you have to do is pick up a dictionary to see what that really means.

Nope. Catch up.

dem, your mom says to turn down that @!$%#ty music and take out the garbage, or she's gonna unplug the wifi cord again...

As Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

I have to give the Teabaggers kudos here; they seemed to have skipped the first step.

Sam I hate to tell you , you and your movement are not Gandhi not even close. Gandhi had a clear objective the end of colonial rule- you guys have no other purpose than to say "they have it , it is unfair and we want it". I specially like the demand to abolish all debt across the world- magnificent and kind of gives you and idea were this is going. Oh by the way I also love the twinkle fingers.

Ivonne, that sure sounds like the situation under colonial rule

250 here, 300 there. maybe at a really big protest a couple thousand.

how many people live in NYC?

Boehner & McConnell aren't impressed. Either am i.

They filibusterd the bill because they don't gave a damn about the suffering of the American people. They felt that their time would be better spent debating yet an other abortion bill. Now that would create jobs.

the bill is garbage. Look what happened to the last jobs bill. It went to pet projects on both sides. They need slow down and look over the details. More bang for the buck. We need a jobs bill that is really shovel ready and not investing in research. Create jobs - but cost effective.

When you TAKE money from one and GIVE it to another it isn't CREATING a job.... it's THEFT

Even more unbelievable is BOTH dems and repubs have passed another trade agreement. We are living with the effects of the last one.

Yes, it's the politicians that need to be replaced as well as ALL lobbyists, all campaign money is put into one coffer and split evenly by the candidates. Stop the cozy bed fellow relationships.

demoblat, you're only counting those in attendance. There are a far greater number of people who are also fed up with corporate greed but are not present.

The trade agreements have been sitting for almost 4 years with the dems refusing to sign it because the unions do not support it. So then all of a sudden Obama lashes out at the republicans for not signing the trade agreements when all this time it was in his lap. Why did he now decide to sign it? Ans. Because it looked good. It looked like he was doing something even if it wasn't helpful.

They don't really appear to stand for anything that I can see other than hating things.

And what about the rights of the people who live there and use the park?

Why do they need to sleep there what's the point?

Why not assemble each day and leave some space for the residents.

They don't have the right to stop hundreds or even thousands of people who are not involved from having a normal life in there own home area.

I would have 10 times more respect for them if they did not stamp on the rights of others and claim a PR victory.

Oh, the republicans listen, and they hear it. They simply refuse to budge, so entrenched they are in their rigid, right wing ideology. Some of it is just a front by John Boehner, imo, because he knows he cannot control his tea party segment, including Eric Cantor, so he's got to go along with their refusal to budge or lose face.

Noone is sitting on a jobs bill moron, Obama's boondoggle is only penned to make the republicans look bad, there is no jobs in his bill, only more unpaidfor spending,all of the infrastructure jobs are temporary, but the tax increases in the bill are permanent. its all a scam MORON, its just there to make Republicans look bad, we are going to look bad anyway for not passing it but if we pass it, we will never get elected again.

Rick in las vegas,

You are a fool to approve of this boondoggle of an oblowhole bill again. It stinks outright of union jobs, Higher taxes for the long term, but short term jobs as oblowhole only knows what to do as to grqnt union jobs. The truth is out there, and America is pissed at this @!$%#@!!

The Obama jobs plan is just more of the same stuff. They're taking money they don't have, paying off their close buddies and families with companies and that's about it. If they were serious about creating jobs - perminant good paying jobs - they would change the corporate tax structure to tax higher on temporary employees than for perminant employees and repeal the Obamacare plan. Ever notice how most of the jobs companies are bringing back are all temp contractor work? Additionally, they need to get rid of all free trade agreements... because that is only a one way free thing... and its not for stuff going into those countries, trust me. Throwing a bunch of money at random special interest things isn't going to solve anything.

And the Republicans accused Obama for not listening to the people when he pushed for Health Care Reform. Polls then showed 50-60% against the so-called Obamacare. Now polls show at least 90% of the people are in favor of the Jobs Act. So who's not listening to the people this time?

speaking of morons, for 30 years the republicans have had their own "stimulas". tax cuts and deregulations for the corporate wealthy, oops "job creators". all the morons running for president are running on the same failed princibles. look around, total failure. now they want to blame it on "big government". if one of these morons get elected, it will be riots in the streets not protests. 57% of the american people agree with the protesters. keep beleiving this is going away, thats what you said a month ago.

GALLUP displays no more than a 45% approval for the Obama jobs act. The most support he could garner came from a plurality and not an outright majority as the 32% of those who were against the bill were joined by 17% of Americans who were ''not sure'' or undecided.

www.gallup.com

Thanks Republicans for "F"ing up our lives. Love ya.

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents to a survey from NBC/Wall Street Journal voiced their approval when pollsters were told them the details of the president's "American Jobs Act"-- including that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, and extend unemployment benefits. NBC reports that 63 percent of respondents said they favored the bill, with just 32 percent opposing it.

We should replace Congress. Congress votes for what is in their own best interests without taking into account what is in the best interest for the people. They worry about upsetting corporate America who is their biggest contributor to individual campaign funds. The unmeployed should run for office, and they are the ones we need to elect because they know as well as the rest of the unemployed what it means to be without a job, losing their homes, having their credit destroyed and any other negative thing that could happen.

Congress needs a change and it needs it now.

Sorry Rick in Vegas, but it was your senator Harry Reid who didn't want a vote on the bill initially. He didn't have all of his little Lefty Duckies in a row to pass it. At least some Democrats want to look at it before passing it and they weren't real happy with what was in it.

I love it, Rick in Vegas repeatng the crap he hears from this administration, 1.9 Million jobs really? How is that, cause Obama told you so, how are you so sure that will happen? The last 700 Billion didn't create a damn thing, he said unemployment would be at 8%, that didn't happen, but you still believe everything he says, this is why Obama and people like you that keep guzzling that Kool-Aid have zero credibility!

Get back in line with your red flag and your Che Guevara T-Shirt to show Obama your support!

Brenda the only person messing up your life is you! Just like a loser liberal...blame every else for your failures and problems. Look in the mirror and take some responsibility for your own success and failures. Nobody owes you anything...your life is what you make of it.

Cobra Cmdr- I can only effect who I vote in as a Senator to represent me. After that, corporate greed comes into play and they sooner or later stop representing me and start representing the corporate greed that tries to keep them in there. I think there should be a finite term of service like the President has where you can only do 2 terms of service. In this way, Senators won't get comfortable and forget what they are hired to do.

I love people who claim that the "overwhelming number of US citizens want the jobs bill!". Really? Because last poll I saw it was 33 for, 23 against, 44 undecided. That is hardly "overwhelming" numbers.

Nelson,

The last $700 billion (supported by both Obama and Bush) ensured that we didn't get our economy into another Great Depression. How come you people who are against the bail out don't realized that! What Obama and Bush did was right. The banks lost their shorts because of they lost their way. Now that they realized it, do you think they are gonna make the same mistake?? That's why they tighten their lending requirements. If you were a bank, would you just lend just because the government suggest you should. I would check, double check and triple check to make sure every loan is safe. When was the last time you lend to a stranger??

Whether you like it or not, the only entity that can restart this economy is the GOVERNMENT. Short term injection of capital to jump start the economy and then long term debt reduction.

demoblat,

You also surreptitiously forgot to include the rest of the World's protestors in your underestimation.

There were over a hundred thousand protestors in total out on the streets throughout Europe. Granted they were not there because of OWS originally but they have also picked up the OWS banner in addition to their other grievances.

Lemonade,

you are correct with your post however even if it was necessary the banks are still behaving like four year olds that have no sense of right and wrong. We, the tax payer, bailed them out and then they turn right around and start foreclosing on tax payers homes. Some of those evicted from their homes probably directly donated money to their banks in the bail out yet got screwed twice.

There there is the Robo signing, fraudulent mortgages, and other gimmicks the banks of used to get people out of their homes.

I do no think we have seen how deep this rabbit hole of corruption goes. The results from this movement are going to be pretty interesting.

Rick - the answer to your question is yes. McConnel and Boner can be more tone deaf. After all, they publicly announced after the 2008 elections that their goal was to make Obama fail, and they have backed it up.

What they don't seem to realize is that this also means that they want to make America fail. The voters hopefully will connect the dots and throw the foot dragging teabaggers out.

Lemonade,

First of all, I don't care for either Bush or Obama, that's the underlying problem in America, everyone assumes that if your against something,your automatically from the other party, wrong! I don't like either one, they are both full of S and are corrupt!

As far as falling into a deeper depression, well I guess we will never know because they chose to bail these institutions out, but there are many that suggest that we should have allowed them to fail, we chose who we wanted to win and who we allowed to lose, I don't that was fair at all, and I also think that the ones chosen were chosen because of special interest and inside relationships, due to donations, contributions what ever you want to call them.

Washington D.C. is bought and paid for, this is why I don't support anyone protesting anywhere but in D.C. that's where the blame should be period! These protest have been orchestrated by the far left to push Obama's jobs bill that will do nothing, this is why they started in New York and not Washington, they had to find a Villain, and it couldn't be Obama!

It is almost insulting to think that these protest are a bunch of Ivy League kids that are asking for their student loans to be forgiven, I thought the people hurting were the Middle class and the poor, you know, the ones who have lost a job after 20 years and their House to go with it, not a bunch of idiots advocating Socialism, pretty embarrassing if you ask me. They have a few places to choose from if that's what they want, this administration should give all of them plane tickets to any of these places!

Cobra Cmdr

Brenda the only person messing up your life is you! Just like a loser liberal...blame every else for your failures and problems

Hey Cobra tell Anita Perry to quit whining! When did SHE turn into a liberal?

5 Demands Protesters Should Make:

1) A stock exchange that prohibits hedging, high frequency trading and short selling; encourages long-term wealth appreciation; and, provides corporations efficient access to capital.

2) Congressional oversight that mandates independent verification that the Federal Reserve, Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of Currency, FDIC, FHFA, FTC, NCUA, SEC and CFTC are ethical, effective and efficient banking and market regulators.

3) A public record system that discloses ethical breaches and conflicts of interest at all branches of the federal government, and includes, at a minimum, a) Ethics Code Certifications; b) Ethics Reporting; and, c) culture assessments on an ongoing basis.

4) FINRA and PCAOB subject to Freedom of Information Act, with absolutely NO exemptions.

5) Responsible fiscal and monetary policies.

Do you have a better solution? Check out the website and then say it is a joke. We all want to make money, right? I do too! We've got to do something. It"s a new way of thinking beside raising taxes or cutting services.

Hedging is a part of the landscape now. There is no going back. You might not like it, nor understand it, but it is here to stay.

It is going to change, but not the way anyone expects.

Oh what fun this shall be.

Yep, that's what they should have demanded. But we got ones like $20 an hour whether you work, or not, free healthcare (while eliminating insurance companies), abolishing all debt (whether you paid for what you got, or not) and credit reporting agencies (to hide that you didn't pay your bills, and ignore those who did), free college (well, actually that one I like, but from independent Professors; and not what we've seen more recently), and of course, open border migration (because 9/11 was an inside job and surely wouldn't happen again). The basic human rights protests that we've seen worldwide are a far cry from the outrageous list of demands from OWS, and it's laughable that you'd even think they associate with America.

That $300,000 represents a lot of money from those who don't earn big bucks like Wall Street executives. I know because my brother-in-law is one. He owns three houses on prime property all worth over $1 million. Even he admits he doesn't work as others in our family do for a lot less money.

The money needs to go to the NYC to pay for the money spend on additional police. This is causing additional strains on the budget and they city might have to fire people or reduce assistance to others in need. If the protesters do not donate the money then they are being selfish and hypocrites

Keep up the slew of ignorant commentary. It helps convince those on the fence which side is the more intelligent.

@demoblat

No. It's not serious... yet.

And only time will tell if it will become so.

Enjoy the thought.

OWS is the best thing that could possibly happen to the republican party.

Between banging their drums at 3AM so nobody can sleep, the smell of pot, their daily arrests & their grunge, come election day "those on the fence" will know exactly where they stand.

And this is just a one month-old movement, too. All without corporate organization or funding. $300,000 is pretty impressive when you remember those points.

All the money Good Old Soros can give that is sad.

@Demoblat, It's money that will not go into the coffers of our esteemed politicians!

Your right, no Democrat. But then who cares.

The money needs to go to the NYC to pay for the money spend on additional police. This is causing additional strains on the budget and they city might have to fire people or reduce assistance to others in need. If the protesters do not donate the money then they are being selfish and hypocrites

It's not Soros it is $300,000 of union money... All these protesters are saying the corporations and banks are buying politicians. Perhaps they should look at who is really donating the most to politicians and it is not corporations it is unions. 12 of the top 20 are labor unions since 1989 and over 75% went to the DNC.

the protesters can do whatever they want with that money. Why is it that people who have a lot of money ought to give it to someone else out of obligation? If it's in their hearts to do it, they will. If they don't, that's their choice.

you mean those unions that represent workers? that just isn't fair. the corporate wealthy should be the only ones able to influence polititions. the workers should not be represented.

the workers are not represented

@frank - So you want to go back to the days when slavery was still active?

You want to return to the days when only the white man had the power, the money, and the freedom?

You want to return to the days when King George ruled America with an iron fist, and anyone who spoke out against him was condemned a sinner; killed in the most bloody, grotesque fashion; and then robbed of everything he or she owned, including their dignity?

If these are the things you desire, then you sir have no place here. I demand you leave our country or I swear you as one man are a supporter of tyranny and should subsequently be jailed with your other tyrant buddies.

Oh yeah, and I'm not using any party as a base here - left, right, lib, conservative, who the hell cares what they are?! People are people. Humans have the right to be what they are until they endanger someone else's life and freedom, which is what you tyrants seem to be doing all too well.

Hahaha what the hell are you even talking about!? You just introduced "chronic headaches" into my gene code; my great-great grandkids will feel the effects of my over-exposure to this powerful, nonsensical force.

@bnb - I seriously hope you aren't referring to me. Because what part of "tyranny is wrong" do you not get?

Oh, you must be one of those who support tyranny. In that case, why don't you go and join your police friends in silencing every person in Wall Street?

Oh wait, that's impossible - there's too many of them. And unless you want the 1776 tragedy to repeat itself, I suggest you rescind your support of tyranny. Else I will have to regard you as an enemy when the time comes once more to fight for America's freedom and values.

'Course, if you were not targetting me, then I humbly apologize for accusing you of such things.

The point of the protests is to get people involved and start examining the system and fix it. It is obviously very broken, and we still have legal recourse through the ballot box. Only with informed citizens making prudent decisions that reflect our own values can we wrestle control back from the mega corporations and Super PACs. This is going to be a fight, because they (big money and their paid politicians) won't go politely, but they are on the wrong side, and just don't realize it yet. Vote with your conscience and with your wallets, people.

yea it is a joke but the biased leftist media loves it

lol

And you reply isn't biased at all, correct?

@NYMike - Of course it is. He's all for the return of the new King George, the tyrant who still lurks among us, unpunished and a fully free man.

He also likes to label people as groups - just as the whites did to blacks, as men did to women, and as heterosexuals did to homosexuals.

Humans - no matter what your skin color, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexuality, gender, or income level is - deserve a chance at life. They deserve a chance to see that glimmer of hope and happiness. The only ones who do not deserve this are those that endanger the lives and welfare of others; this is the kind of thing that Wall Street is doing, and that Bush has done but has gone unpunished for.

While I applaud these protestors for speaking out, they need to learn from the mistakes of Libya and Egypt - in that they need to center themselves around a core complaint (which they seem to have a little momentum on, but they aren't moving forward with it), and have their protests center on this.

A wolf that snaps blindly against his master may find himself biting the blade that ends him.

@Crimson, really? You made that leap because he disagrees with the ridiculous demands made by OWS--only one that addresses race and issue, so quit with the infantile attacks, already. I could care less what you are. And for you to blame Bush and ignore the very fabric of Obama's career and supporters is typical two-faced liberal nature. Just look at his cabinet and advisers.

I think it's a disgusting breed of person that would take something without paying for it. Is that racist? Gender biased? Nope. It's about being responsible. OWS appears to be anything but. Abolish all debt and the credit reporting agencies? Why, so those who played by the rules get to be lumped in with the deadbeats that ran financially amok? I'm sure none of that $300k will go to repair the damages you've done to that private park, or even the city of New York.

Newsflash, ya damn idiot: I'm on the other side of the country. Had I an actual opportunity for a job, I would take it. But everyone here takes everything I can actually do. Doesn't help I'm both A)Mentally ill, and B)Unable to drive due to medical conditions.

This really limits what I can do and what I can't, both in what's available and the way employers treat me should I desire to go solo (that is, without assistance of a mental health agency, something that irks me because I feel less of a human because of it).

I've never even been to New York. All I know of what goes on is what I read here.

Also, he only uses three lines that are rather derogatory - hardly an intelligent argument there. Furthermore, I'm not a liberal. I just want a chance to prove myself without being treated like I ain't human. I'm not siding with Obama here, but nor do I think anyone on the Republican side can do any better.

And I was never singling out race here - I was talking about discrimination as a whole. Next time think before you post, eh?

EDIT - And one last thing, Paul. Are you aware that Obama's held at knifepoint by Congress? He can't fire them, but they can kick him out. Congress is appointed by the people to make sure the President doesn't abuse his power. The President can veto, sure; but Congress can negate that simply with a 2/3rds majority vote.

Doesn't help every law has to pass the House before the Senate - you can't throw a bill into the Senate without the House seeing it. And as it just so happens, you've got ideological idiots in the House.

Passing the House is based on whatever Boehner and Ryan agree with; passing the Senate is an ethical and moral issue.

Cujo, several things (and I'm just trying to help - please don't take this the wrong way)

1. Newsvine isn't going to get you hired.
2. If the mental health agency can help you, USE IT. Suck up your pride and use every resource at your disposal. Report into every job placement organization you can daily. Get to know their employees on a first-name basis until you are the first person they think of when there is an opening. Eventually they'll get you hired just so you stop bugging them.
3. Buy yourself a used copy of "Your Career: How To Make It Happen" from Amazon. This shouldn't cost more than $4 shipped. Great guide on researching employers, customizing your resume based on who you are applying to, what to say/wear/do/avoid in interviews, etc. After using it to get hired with my current employer five years ago, I've loaned it out to several friends and family members. Believe me when I say it is obvious who read and applied it and who just kept it for a while before giving it back.
4. Leverage everyone you know. Ask all your personal contacts if they have any leads on jobs (not if they can get you on where they work, but if they have heard of any other people/places). Ask them if they know anybody else who may know of some leads. Ask fellow job seekers for leads. Follow up and build out your network.
5. Don't be afraid to take a crappy job while you wait for something better. There is a reason part-time Wal-mart greeters have high turnover. It may not be what you were looking for, but it'll help pay the bills until something better comes along.
6. Take advantage of free training programs and build your marketable skills up. Several employers need someone to know Office 2007, but you have never touched it? You're in luck: Microsoft has free online training on most of their products (and they're not alone).
7. Even if you get turned down, ask that employer if they know of anywhere else that may be available. Lots of places will share leads with you, but few people will ask for them. This also gets you stuck in the employer's head as someone who is hungry for a job if they end up having another opening.

Jobs are out there, even for individuals with mental health issues and limited transportation. The problem is knowing how to track them down and making sure they know you're a fit for the position.

@234r - Lemme reply to your points, or at least the ones I found worth giving answers to.

1. I'm well aware Newsvine's not a job outlet - that's not why I'm here. I'm here merely to do what is within my 1st amendment rights - to speak my mind. It's not like I actually can do anything to these people - I voice the hate, but can never follow through with it. I'm incapable of harm since a certain incident, but that's irrelevant.

2. The problem is that they can't exactly figure out what they can do to really help me, since the problem stems from a diagnosis folded within itself - I'm capable of showing that I'm not extremely mentally ill, but on the other hand, those diagnosticians need to pin something on me for whatever reason. Again, irrelevant save one point - mental health needs a revamp, badly.

5. This is exactly my point here - those kinds of jobs are TAKEN! Again, this is not merely an issue with what I'm picking - I'm willing to do whatever. The problem is that nobody is hiring IN THE FIRST PLACE! If they do, I'm pretty sure I'll be nailed on the basis that I have no prior work experience (I'm almost 24, so you can imagine how I feel regarding that).

6. Oh, I am quite computer literate, thank you. Almost to the point of near obsession. Irrelevant though.

Also should mention I have a high school diploma, but no college education - and the current student loan system scares me because nobody's explaining the details to me, so I'm frightened to move forward with a student loan.

If it were merely a matter of pride, then you'd have an argument. The reality is though, I wasn't given as many opportunities as I'dve liked.

Cujo, you really need to check yourself when your thought process appears as deep as the kiddie pool. So many opportunities to blame, and that's all I see. I have issues so everyone needs to bend to my will? You're posting on an OWS thread who want open migration, and you're whining about jobs already being taken? What do you think would happen if that demand was met?

As for college, quit acting like you can't figure out the small print. Like a surgeon you attempt to dismantle and refute every single argument--point by point. Wisdom appears to be your only disability. As for work, there are plenty of online companies that hire medical coders and then some. You seem to type quite well. Turn your obsession into a labor of love.

As for opportunities, we make our own way in this country, and it is the job of our parents to make our lives better, as it is ours to make our children's better. If your parents failed, that's on them, making it your job to step up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that when your parents have failed, we will take care of you. While political grandstanders were focusing on DADT, what they should have been repealing was CAFTA and NAFTA and focusing heavily on our trade imbalances with China. That's the real start to returning manufacturing to this country, putting more people to work, increasing the tax base, and teaching all of America a valuable lesson.

And here's the real Newflash, grasshopper--Obama is held at knifepoint because he is the biggest failure since Carter to set foot in the Whitehouse. 2010 was the reaction to the bulls**t bestowed on us by a runaway Hill who believed that spending your grandchildren's futures now would benefit them in the future. Typical political rhetoric that doesn't have to be proven because they've time-stamped it generations from now.

Just as you make leaps and bounds in your arguments, you are more than capable of understanding that the direction we are heading in is wrong, and instead of curbing government spending, the OWS wants to increase it, exponentially, as though we hadn't had enough already. The OWS makes the Tea Party look like geniuses, while the Tea Party makes the OWS look like a bunch of whiny little kids that want everything handed to them on a silver platter without having to do anything for it.

We went from generation x to y to me me me me.

It's interesting to read how some of the rich and famous got their starts. You're still young. You can likely still take risks and devote yourself in ways that a 30+ individual can't because of the need to give stability to a spouse/kids/house payment/etc. Can't find a job? Make one.

Example 1: Mark Cuban. Famously sold and traded everything he could to pay for college. Started by selling packs of garbage bags door-to-door at age 12 (might not be a bad idea to sell lawn bags/rake leaves now that fall is beginning). Sold greeting cards to students on the IU campus. Traded stamps. Taught dance lessons. None of the above required anybody to hire him. Moved to Dallas, got fired from a tech company with less than a year on the job. He started a competitor and sold it a few years later for $6mil.

Example 2: Warren Buffett. Went door-to-door selling chewing gum, coca-cola, magazines. Sold newspapers, stamps, golfballs. Detailed cars. Went in with a friend to buy used pinball machines and placed them in stores around town. None of that required anybody to hire him. At 22, he took a train from Omaha to D.C., knocked on the door of GEICO's HQ until a janitor let him in, then chatted up a VP for a couple hours about the insurance industry. He didn't wait for job openings - he made them.

You seem very confident in your tech IQ, and describe it as "almost to the point of obsession." Well, crank it up and obsess. Turn what you love to do into a money-making venture. I think there is a huge opportunity here:

Places like GeekSquad want to charge old people/housewives/techno-illiterate a small fortune for something as simple as virus removal, wifi setup, or a wipe & restore. ($299.99 for in-home virus removal?!?) You can significantly undercut them, give personalized service, and ask the happy customers to spread your contact info. Even if you're slow as hell and take 3 hrs per job @ $90/job, you're still making $30/hr while the customer is ecstatic they saved $210 +tax. I did this a couple years ago to make some extra cash for Christmas and at max I was doing 7 or 8 a week after work and on weekends. I STILL get occasional calls/emails asking if I have time to fix something. 8 jobs * $90 * 52 weeks = $37440/yr. That's not bad for about 24hrs/week (leaves plenty of time to keep hunting for something with insurance, 401k, etc). Recommend making sure you at least have CompTIA A+ level know-how before starting. Bad word of mouth from a flubbed job can kill an entire chain of prospects quick. You don't have to actually pay for A+ cert/training, but the knowledge level is essential.

In turn, that freelance work can be experience and references for your resume and lead to a helpdesk/repair depot position, which could eventually lead to a helpdesk manager position, which could turn into a domain admin position, which could eventually end up as a promotion to an IT Director position. Fixing some neighborhood computers could be more than just a short-term way to make some cash - it could be the start of a career.

Really? If it doesn't hit Topeka, it can't be important? Some heavy thinking there.

I think it is more like heavy drinking

Well, I can agree with one thing here: if every Christian church shoves their rhetoric down my throat and expects me to obey it as law, then I hereby claim that Christianity as a whole is a religion that is a guide for tyranny and oppression.

Of course, if they allow us the right to believe what we will, they at least get the honor of my cordiality, but not my faith.

And yes, I'm with the so-called "enemy" here, the Devil. Do I regret my decision? No. Do I intend to back down before the masses of people that may or may not persecute me for my beliefs? No.

I stand resolute, defending my first amendment beliefs - which I believe include all religions, not just Christian denominations.

It was a good call too! Who else is better to vote the leaders in than the job makers?

So, where are the jobs? wasn't that the battle cry of the GOP in 2010? where are the jobs? they got their way and the question still is....WHERE ARE THE JOB?. oh, sorry, gotta block any form of job creation, we have abortions to worry about. That's MUCH more inportant.

Oh the Supreme Court ruled over a year ago (maybe two) That you cant charge someone with Identity fraud it your identity is used for employment. Meanwhile the victims have to fight the IRS as we are on a progressive system thus not enough taxes were taken out. Others have to fight to keep their disability payments because someone was working using their identity. Others try to file for unemployment benefits; however it was already maxed out by someone using their identity. I have no confidence in the Supreme Court. They dont care about victims

Yes I do! But I don't think you do. Corporations do not elect anyone. We do! The only thing that the money gives politicians is more advertising time, more get out the vote volunteers etc. etc. etc. If American's did a better job of vetting newcomers and voting out the same old retards (Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, McCain, etc.) that have been in office for decades (while our country has gone to sh*t). Vote out the ones that introduce legislation favorable to their corporate campaign donors. The problem with American politics isn't the corporate financial donors. It's the dumba$$ voters that keep buying the same swill over and over again. American voters are much more powerful that corporate money...if they want to be.

@Jay F. Morrow

It's been done before in Pre-WW2 Italy under the government headed by Benito Mussolini. Worked out real well for him.

Here. Read all about it.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fascism

http://homepage.mac.com/stray/ib/history/fascism.html

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

Enjoy.

@ Nightwalker... the Tea Party can't create jobs and they know it. The government doesn't create jobs. It is simply another layer of administration added ontop of our economy. If the Tea Party were allowed to go through with alot of its designs, things would be chaos for a while, yes... as people begin to re-learn personal responsibility and have to learn to be dependent upon themselves and their family and neighbors instead of Big Brother. There would be quite a few years of problems. But you'd see illegal immigration stop. You'd see coprporations ramping up their workforce in preparation for cheaper labor and business. You'd eventually see the economy pick up with solid things like manufacturing... not these stupid jobs that really don't add anything to the economy (think the minimum wage jobs for example).

The Tea Party is being blocked in all of its ways just as much as the democratic party is being blocked. Honestly, I don't understand why everyone is panicking about it right now. It's a good thing! The less that our government does the better job it is doing.

Obama and the democrats had 2 years to pass anything and everything they wanted and to prove to our country that they knew what was best for us. Well here we are almost a year later and all of those things they put in haven't really helped... at the very best they just put a parachute on the fall that was inevitable, therefore prolonging the pain. Instead of 2 or 3 REALLY BAD years we're now stuck with 10 or so bad years.

The vagueness of it seems to just baffle the beffudled GOPTPers. They can't seem to wrap their right wing minds around the concepts.

terriels - if the debate is not for increasing profit, their small minds are at a loss.

. . . that all you got frankie boy . . . pretty lame . . .

The only idiot I've seen here so far is Frank Battaglia. Talk about *sucked up the teabagger tea*. He spouts Fox Nooze talking points really well. Good job there.../snark

frank, you have brought nothing but immaturity to this discussion. Opening every reply with calling people names. Even the people dead against this protest wont even vote up your childish actions.

When you look in the mirror, does your reflection slap you in the face?

franks another victim of a rushed limbaughotomy.

So only the righties are getting their ad hominem on, NYMike? Yeah, right.

Not at all Fils. Both sides are doing it. However, frank takes it to a different level. All of his post open up with childish name calling. Followed by off topic attacks.

At no point did I even state a political party. You're the one choosing to assume. All I did was point out the blatent immaturity of frank.

I reread your post; point taken. And yes, both sides are engaged in it. Too bad they don't recognize the false dichotomy they construct.

You're right. In the Right Wing Wonderland world, where up is down, job creation is achieved by filibustering job creation bills.

It could not get any more out of whack, yet Cantor, Boner and McConnell apparently actually believe this is what we want.

um you realize some people were paid to protest.

mouse, who and proof???

You are a sad, sad individual. The ironic thing is; with your extreme anarchist-libertarian perverted thinking, you're exactly the kind of person who would "go first" under your ideal kind of system. You're a moron and I hope fate keeps you confined to pumping gas and performing socially non-invasive tasks.

But it will, won't it? Know what that is? That's called darwinism. But that's another thing you pretend to be "all about" and "informed-on", right?

I happen to be retired and doing pretty good, and as name says. I don't owe anything to anybody. How about you?

I am very concerned for the future of this country and it's PEOPLE. This stufff is going to get very serious.

My error, debtfree - from your comment, I thought you were in favor of seeing the protests escalate.

And actually, I do owe money (student loans). And I am "between jobs", graduate degree in-hand. But I understand that my success is commensurate with my effort. And besides, my MFA is in Finance. SO, unlike those demonstrators, I actually have an accurate, intimate knowledge of how labor markets react to economic shocks. And, that the system provides a proof-based optimization of living standards. So I'm not complaining.

Well I actually don't know what optimization on paper you are talking about, but my expertise is in living among the poorest citizens of this country. When your boss will only schedule you to come in for 34 hours a week so he doesn't have to offer any benefits, and then asks you to take care of a couple more things before you leave after you've clocked out... See I think this whole thing is about ethics. I call people with millions of dollars in the bank "Echelons above reality" Ethics becomes whatever you can get away with and the ability to see the immorality of a thing evaporates. I DO NOT want to be rich. But I do want the rich to put their feet on the earth. We are blades of grass, living a short time. What do we do for decency?

Wow. Nice fear-mongering Davef. Any of the violence I have heard about was started by the police.

maybe, the real grassroots teabaggers can get the KOCHSTERS to fund a few dozen thugs to infiltrate one of these rallies, so the network of greed can get sister CANTOR to spout off about this troubling turn of events ,remember the WISCONSIN underhanded conspiracy with puppet WALKER ,the TEAPUBLICANS cant face the cause of this mess so every dirty trick will be brought to the game.

can you imagine if the protesters were forced to leave the park in NYC? I guarantee it would have turned violent and bloody. That's why NYC told the company that owns the park to not get involved. Otherwise the streets would be stained in blood already.

Unfortunately, Dave's correct. Rioting and looting has already taken over some of the overseas OWS-like gatherings, and if history is any guide (it is), it's only time before this looks like a G20 protest.

Jay: In case you hadn't heard, there is ( officially ) a 9+% unemployment rate in this country. I'd say that there are people of all political stripes who've filled out dozens of applications since losing their jobs, and who'll likely continue filling them out despite the dim prospects. If I was unemployed, I'd likely head to Wall Steet myself, and demand accountability and just desserts for the casino capitalists and fraudsters who wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, I'll do my part to increase that paltry $300K by a few bucks. As far as liberal Democrats not knowing what a job is---come on! You can't actually believe that.

People could work if they wanted to. They are just too picky and too bitchy!

how many people who are unemployed studied in school to get great scholarships and enrolled in fields where jobs are needed. The industrial age should have ended sooner; however, the unions fought modernazation as it would cut jobs. Eventually it cost more to pay the workers than they could recoup. How many people are single parents (other than due to divorce) and had the child when they couldnt afford it? How many of those out of work could have saved a lot more than they did but bought more house, more gadgets, etc., then they should have. Its called personal responsibility. Oh and dont forget the housing problem started under Clintons administration when they insisted on providing mortgages for those who really couldn't afford it. Obama has finally stated that not everyone should own a home.

@Jay F. Morrow

Gawd... even the illegal aliens are leaving because they can't find any work. What does this indicate to you?

Oh... wait. Don't tell me.

Complete economic recovery. Right?

Good imigration laws being upheld?

Jay,

Many people who are unemployed are either picky or can't or won't move to areas which have jobs. When I lost my job in a liberal state, I moved to an oil-based state which are all booming right now. States like North Dakota have the fastest growth rates and low unemployment. If your willing to relocate, then there is a job for you. Forget the protesting and move to where the jobs are.

@Jay F. Morrow

We can only wish it was good immigration laws being upheld. Sadly, I do not believe that to be the case.

@Mark

Are there 24 million jobs available where you are? If so, GREAT! Please get the word out. From what I understand that is the number currently needed.

Wizard,

You missed the point I was trying to make. Not everyone is going to relocate, but some should to distribute the jobs over the whole country. The increase in employment in these states would also create more jobs to handle the increase in population. Caste a wider net and be more flexible in the type jobs you are willing to take. If you limit your job options, then your pool of jobs will be even more limited.

@Mark

Thanks for the reply. Your points are quite valid. And no, I didn't miss the point before, just couldn't resist the urge to place it in perspective.

how about obama

Just make sure (s)he doesnt quit half-the-way for more profitable "services"

too bad but does not justify this bs

The "billions" is an accumulative figure.

No individual makes (collects) those "billions".

The profits are spread to employees, to overhead, for new equipment, insurance and the list goes on.

And just because a CEO of a large corporation gets millions that is peanuts to pay

for the captain of a profitable endeavour.

Corporations ARE people, a collective of the profitable group, but ALL people.

That's just a wonderful attitude. So how is a middle class guy supposed to get ahead when his/her company won't reward them compensation wise and use the guise of a bad economy to not increase your pay?? So it is only the strong will survive and if I can make 20 million and you can't too bad. Go F yourself, not my problem. Country wasn't built like that and if don't return to maker of things and instead of a buyer of things, then we will have true class warfare sooner rather then later and this country is going down the tubes.

@ Viewer_R... I find it difficult to find a conservative thinker that can explain why the wage desparity between CEO's, and blue collar worker's has increased in such a rapid pace in the last 40 years? What added value is that to the functioning of our nation as a whole?

After a while, I thought it might attract the brightest minds to our country to gain citizenship and contribute to the greater good of themselves, and, us all.

But then, I thought, based on the success we have enjoyed from that concept/policy, what if that process eventually made us an empire builder ...

Do personal empires perpetuate pursuit of greater empires?

And, if things aren't going so good what do we do?

I say, quit nation building and support our own!

Ron Paul 2012

'the 90's, I got 5-6% raises every year, plus stock bonuses and I didn't work as hard as I am now and I am getting nothing for my hard work

Well then Charlie- guess some might call this payback! Whqat you just wrote is part of the problem- spoiled people ! most of us are! Imagine if you had actually workd harder in the 90's and had earned more money, and actually saved more of it, and learned how to invest it well and even earned money on your investments, then you could offer some of your money as shared sacrafices now!

I remember in the 80's when a 30 year bond guaranted at 18% interest a year.

Now, you might as well burn your money.

Viewer_Ready

The "billions" is an accumulative figure.

No individual makes (collects) those "billions".

The profits are spread to employees, to overhead, for new equipment, insurance and the list goes on.

And just because a CEO of a large corporation gets millions that is peanuts to pay

for the captain of a profitable endeavour.

Corporations ARE people, a collective of the profitable group, but ALL people.

• Oh, so I guess everybody in America is wrong! Thanks for pointing that out.
• We can all just shut up and let the corporations and government continue as before.

For the lazy complaining butts that have no clue as to what is at stake here -

I would like all the Yahoos spouting more miss-information to stop and listen.

These are our kids doing what the adults don't have the "Cohones" just old seniors and young kids - you should be ashamed to voice disparagement's with no foundation your future and that of the country are on the line - we cannot continue to do "Business as Usual" if so we are done for.

We refuse to pay for the Bail Outs of 2008 the Millions and Billions these Bank-gangsters along with a corrupt congress and we know who they are - We Know from Both Parties Who is Bought and Paid For - We Know but do not call them out - docile weak willed sheep being lead to slaughter grateful to even have your own money (Social Security and Medicare) paid back to you when you most need it and planned your whole life on this money - it is your money not an ENTITLEMENT.

Here our young kids and adults doing your lazy ass work for you.....the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDE5qKxRCOo

If you feel as though you did something wrong and are morally obligated to pay for the Bail Outs - You love the 1% - Then You Pay - The Kids Are Not nor the Seniors going to pay for the Trillion Dollar Party of Wall Street - YOU PAY

They are not cutting my own money and pay back at a minimal amount when I am 70 years old - Are you Serious? 70 or 72 years old? Because they are if you let them (Congress and Wall Street) will take this Bail Out Money from your Future and that of Your Children - Don't You See What Is Happening?

Stand Up and Speak Out - No More Having Our Voices and Persons Attacked by Their Thugs - Enough - Take the Money Out Of Politics - Stop These For Profit Wars Now - Billionaires so many made so many Millionaires from death and destruction - What a Scam

Last week two stories on MSNBC highlighted the problem:

CEO compensation increased 28% in 2010.

and

Wages down in new millenium - will remain flat until 2021!!!

WTH?? This is why people are calling for change.

agree

That is because the rich believe they are Gods and Kings. The poor are poor because the rich wanted to keep them that way. Woodrow Wilson stated that the public schools are not meant to educate they are to create nonthinking people to work for the corporations. The IVY League schools are for the elite to educate their children to promote the interests of the elite via the delusion of democracy.

I'm not rich but I want to be. One thing for sure I wouldnt start a business. Too many people have a sense of entitlement and dont believe in working hard. With all the laws that hurt businesses I would be afraid. And I definitely wouldnt open a business it a state that allows discrimination. (i.e. unions. People who are qualified to work in a job are discriminated against if they dont join the union)

Sometimes Jay and sometimes there are real diffrences in wealth. There isen't case yet in this country but ironically if we put in a system of goverment some of those on wall street want we will have a real problem and real revolts.

Thomas,

Are you on food stamps and other forms of welfare? Too sorry to go out and get a real job? People in Alabama are crying they don't want to work because they would lose their food stamps and many other entitlements. Get off the government T!t!!!

@thomas pained - you are exactly right. What they really want is a gullible, easily persuaded voter base that can do the manual labor and breed, while remaining just dumb enough to not realize how they are actually nothing more than a commodity to be exploited. In this age of easily available information, an educated voter base is not a nice-to-have. It is absolutely essential at this critical point in our history.

Nada.

They have Nada.

I wonder who is watching the money and directing it's use? That will be all gone and the people left on the streets with nothing but what they came with and that is nothing. Turn to violence and you become criminals at that point. New York as a lot problems this is one that they didn't need. Maybe the city of New York can send this organization the bills for the police protection and the clean up. That should do it.

Criminal unions, Comm unists and Anarchists like Code Stink

That stink you smell is the stench of corruption and greed.

Hundred of billions of our money to bail out corporations so the CEO's can give themselves $30,000,000+ bonuses while they throw people out of their homes and jobs.

This is just the start. Revolution!

Ross,you are correct, today CITI GROUP& WELLS FARGO will POST OVER 70% profit in the last QUARTER earnings .everything is just fine , TEABAGGERS cheer!

Your knowledge about the protesters is pretty much on a par with your knowledge about any American who is something other than an obedient right-wing stooge.

Sock it to um Siara Delyn!

Pretty soon these stinky fools will just get bored and leave.

Fools?Rethink your thoughts, on the Fools part that is.I would like to say something on the Stinko parts but I don't want to insult you.

Well don't take my word for it, take a look for yourself. These people are living in a trash pile. Anyway, why are these idiots protesting corporations? If corporations went away, there would be no one left with any money to give these bottom feeders the handouts that they are begging for.

Why don't you get a set of balls and go ask them?Unfricken Believable

They aren't asking for the corporations to "go away" as you say. They want to close tax loop holes that benefit huge corporations and for those who contributed to the economic mess (for which you blame the president) to be held accountable.