*Occupy Wall Street*

[partgypsy]

And so I offend everyone equally, here is a protester joke


Q: How many Columbia students does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Seventy six-one to change the lightbulb, fifty to protest the lightbulb's right not to change and twenty five to hold a counter protest.
or should I say wink wink? I'm may be slow to be offended, but I'm not stupid "Maybe not a dead horse...a stupid horse."

I love when that happens because when people start calling me stupid I know they lost their argument.

Wasn't directed toward you.

But I do believe anyone that supports the OWS "movement"... the answer, is...well, not smart. In fact, I do believe it's a stupid conclusion and based on stupid thought.

And that encompasses lots of people, and not just on the PS site. My opinion. As far as I know, I'm still entitled to that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/wealthy-can-declare-support-for-occupy-wall-street-on-new-website.html

I guess even the rich can be stupid. Shocking. Beebrisk you can be angry for them in their place.

 

[beebrisk]

believes that "the banks" are the enemy,

That I agree with banks are an enemy!
They together with the wall street crooks tanked the entire economy for their personal gain.
Then get bailed out with my and every other American's money.
To this day the fed. a bank is printing money like there is no tomorrow which directly effects me in a negative way(every dollar I earn is worth less) and giving it away to their banker cronies.
How does that not make them an enemy?

The current president and his administration Barney "Fanny and Freddy are fundamentally sound" Franks, Dodd/Frank's bill legalizing price-fixing in the banking industry; a trillion dollars spent to stimulate absolutely nothing but Treasury printing presses; a half-billion gift to a teetering Solar Energy company blown. I could go on. Are banks a problem? Yes. But they aren't the whole story. We all know if there wasn't a Democratic president in the WH, the OWS throngs would be directing their efforts there, not on Wall Street. The buck should stop with him, but he's too busy squandering every dime he can get his hands on (and now by Executive Order, no less!)

 

[beebrisk]

And so I offend everyone equally, here is a protester joke


Q: How many Columbia students does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Seventy six-one to change the lightbulb, fifty to protest the lightbulb's right not to change and twenty five to hold a counter protest.
or should I say wink wink? I'm may be slow to be offended, but I'm not stupid "Maybe not a dead horse...a stupid horse."

I love when that happens because when people start calling me stupid I know they lost their argument.

Wasn't directed toward you.

But I do believe anyone that supports the OWS "movement"... the answer, is...well, not smart. In fact, I do believe it's a stupid conclusion and based on stupid thought.

And that encompasses lots of people, and not just on the PS site. My opinion. As far as I know, I'm still entitled to that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/wealthy-can-declare-support-for-occupy-wall-street-on-new-website.html

I guess even the rich can be stupid. Shocking. Beebrisk you can be angry for them in their place.

Yes, they can. Look at Michael Moore, Kayne, Susan Sarandon and the others in "solidarity" with OWS. Not only stupid, but hypocritical as wel. No one ever said rich=smart.

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="Dancing Fire|1320114770|3051439then they shouldn't have gamble with their retirement $$$.[/quote]


most have their retirement money in 401k's. 401k's are controlled by one's employer.....you can pick and choose within the confines of the funds that the employer has chosen for its 401k program. not to have enrolled in a 401k program when an employer offers it is throwing $ away. those that participate in 401k programs are trying to make sure they have a retirement......they are not gambling. wall street tanked a lot of people's 401k's, DF. in fact, i remember you starting a thread re "not looking at your 401k".....

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Dancing Fire|1320114770|3051439then they shouldn't have gamble with their retirement $$$.

most have their retirement money in 401k's. 401k's are controlled by one's employer.....you can pick and choose within the confines of the funds that the employer has chosen for its 401k program. not to have enrolled in a 401k program when an employer offers it is throwing $ away. those that participate in 401k programs are trying to make sure they have a retirement......they are not gambling. wall street tanked a lot of people's 401k's, DF. in fact, i remember you starting a thread re "not looking at your 401k".....[/quote]


i don't have a 401k but wife does. she has the option of picking her own stocks,well... actually i get to pick the stocks...

 

[MissStepcut]

I support many elements of OWS's general thrust and I will admit I think I am damn smart. Forgive the lack of modesty. There is plenty of room for reasonable minds to differ when it comes to the subject of Wall Street's operations and the policies that allow this particular iteration of our financial sector to exist. Plenty of smart people agree with me, and plenty don't. Idiots fall on both sides too.

 

[beebrisk]

I support many elements of OWS's general thrust and I will admit I think I am damn smart. Forgive the lack of modesty. There is plenty of room for reasonable minds to differ when it comes to the subject of Wall Street's operations and the policies that allow this particular iteration of our financial sector to exist. Plenty of smart people agree with me, and plenty don't. Idiots fall on both sides too.

Yes, there are reasonable minds that take issue with many elements of the financial sector. However, many of those downtown, banging drums, smoking doobies, hanging out in the rain for weeks, calling the police "fascists" and relieving themselves at will and in public, are not exactly what I would consider reasonable...or smart. And their buddies from Hollywood sure as heck aren't, either.

 

[MissStepcut]

If you look to find unflattering representatives of any movement, you'll surely find them.

 

[beebrisk]

Nice job Occupiers!

We now know just how fair and caring you all really are and how concerned you are for the community you have decided to (literally) pee and poop on.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/01/milk-street-cafe-owner-sacks-21-employees-as-consequence-of-occupy-wall-street-demonstration/

 

[MissStepcut]

However, Epstein doesn’t lay all the blame at the feet of Occupy Wall Street.

“I think this is an issue of both Occupy Wall Street and the city officials. There’s protest and how you react to protest,” Epstein said. “If the barriers do not come down, I do not see how we can survive. This has got to become like America again. You have to be free to walk around.”

“Everybody should understand the consequences of their actions,” he said.

From your article. Sounds like a pretty smart and reasonable guy.

Ever heard that democracy is messy?

 

[HollyS]

I don't recall, in the last 8 pages, any post that called another poster such a name as stupid, pig, etc. Died in the wool rightie or leftie, certainly. But pig??

Or did I just miss the rudeness by skipping over posters I don't usually read?

Well there was that one poster who called me mean and then left for parts unknown . . . Obvlously, they don't know me well enough to know how seriously thick my hide is.

Oh, well. Bygones.

 

[beebrisk]

However, Epstein doesn’t lay all the blame at the feet of Occupy Wall Street.

“I think this is an issue of both Occupy Wall Street and the city officials. There’s protest and how you react to protest,” Epstein said. “If the barriers do not come down, I do not see how we can survive. This has got to become like America again. You have to be free to walk around.”

“Everybody should understand the consequences of their actions,” he said.

From your article. Sounds like a pretty smart and reasonable guy.

Ever heard that democracy is messy?

I knew that would come up. Yes. He does seem like a smart and reasonable guy. A guy who started a business and has obviously worked very hard for many years in order to expand his business. He didn't sleep in a park, rolling joints holding up a list of "demands" he wanted met, in return for, well, sleeping in the park!

The barriers wouldn't need to be there unless there were a few hundred no-goodnicks squatting in the park. Has everyone forgotten that this city was attacked 10 years ago? Security has been stepped up 100 fold and this is what Bill Bratten has decided needs to be done to keep everyone safe. Democracy is not what is being practiced in the park. Anarchy, more like it.

If they want to experiment with Democracy they can go to the polls and make their voice heard. They can -gasp!- get a job in the financial industry and try to change it from within. They do not have the right to impede on anyone's liberty and right simply to go to work every day.

"Messy"? Is that what you'd call it if it was your job? Really??? Perhaps you should voluntarily sacrifice your career and income to anyone with a gripe against anything who decides to hang out in your local park. After all, their right to "squat" trumps any of your rights, RIGHT?

 

[MissStepcut]

Anyone who read the article was bound to notice that the man who was supposedly wronged by the protesters understands that the choices the city made were partially to blame, of course. Anyone to read the whole thing, anyway.

They wouldn't be in that park if they and many others didn't believe that there was something very wrong with the way things are being regulated on Wall Street right now.

It's true that they can vote (what makes you think they aren't?). And that they could try to change things from within (I know multiple people who work at major banks who agree with the idea that the way Wall Street operates and is regulated is bad for the country). They can also protest. There are lots of avenues for political change, and I personally believe there's a time and a place for most of them.

Now, I cannot protest, and most of the people I know likewise cannot. It happens that the people who have the time to do that likely don't dress or act the way I or my friends would if we were down there, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. A few examples of disruptiveness or expense doesn't detract from the validity of the overarching idea at all. It's just a distraction from the real policy issues.

 

[beebrisk]

Anyone who read the article was bound to notice that the man who was supposedly wronged by the protesters understands that the choices the city made were partially to blame, of course. Anyone to read the whole thing, anyway.

They wouldn't be in that park if they and many others didn't believe that there was something very wrong with the way things are being regulated on Wall Street right now.

It's true that they can vote (what makes you think they aren't?). And that they could try to change things from within (I know multiple people who work at major banks who agree with the idea that the way Wall Street operates and is regulated is bad for the country). They can also protest. There are lots of avenues for political change, and I personally believe there's a time and a place for most of them.

Now, I cannot protest, and most of the people I know likewise cannot. It happens that the people who have the time to do that likely don't dress or act the way I or my friends would if we were down there, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. A few examples of disruptiveness or expense doesn't detract from the validity of the overarching idea at all. It's just a distraction from the real policy issues.

Ask the majority of the people sitting in the park day in and day out, and they couldn't tell you how Wall Street worked if it killed them, much less tell you what's right or wrong with it.

I'm sure your justification of the squatters actions and talk of the "validity of the idea" would be very comforting to the 21 people who no longer have a job to go to on Wall Street. No matter, I guess they are simply a "distraction from the real policy issues"?

 

[MissStepcut]

21 jobs are not even a blip on the radar. They're not even the margin of error in the unemployment rate. Not to be insensitive to real people with real hardship, but YES focusing on that is a distraction.

I am conceding that the people on the street aren't the best representative of the people who want reform.

 

[beebrisk]

21 jobs are not even a blip on the radar. They're not even the margin of error in the unemployment rate. Not to be insensitive to real people with real hardship, but YES focusing on that is a distraction.

I am conceding that the people on the street aren't the best representative of the people who want reform.

Yet it's okay that they cause what's not even a "blip on the radar" ?

 

[Imdanny]

How were 21 jobs lost on Wall Street? I haven't heard about this.

 

[CherryBlossom]

How were 21 jobs lost on Wall Street? I haven't heard about this.

I would like to know too

 

[CherryBlossom]

Ask the majority of the people sitting in the park day in and day out, and they couldn't tell you how Wall Street worked if it killed them, much less tell you what's right or wrong with it.

what do you base that on ? stereotype much? I know plenty of educated people who are participating in the movement.

Furthermore, I doubt that you can come across many people who are even married to folks on Wall Street who can properly explain how Wall Street works -- aka what they were ACTUALLY doing that got us into this mess.

 

[beebrisk]

Ask the majority of the people sitting in the park day in and day out, and they couldn't tell you how Wall Street worked if it killed them, much less tell you what's right or wrong with it.

what do you base that on ? stereotype much? I know plenty of educated people who are participating in the movement.

Furthermore, I doubt that you can come across many people who are even married to folks on Wall Street who can properly explain how Wall Street works -- aka what they were ACTUALLY doing that got us into this mess.

I'm talking about the doobie-smoking, public-peeing, tent-living folks. So no, I don't stereotype much. No more than most did with the Tea Party, that is.

And thanks for proving my point. If you don't know WHAT Wall Street does, then how legitimate is this "movement"? If I were to get out and protest, I would know WTH I was talking about. Wouldn't you?

 

[UnluckyTwin]

believes that "the banks" are the enemy,

That I agree with banks are an enemy!
They together with the wall street crooks tanked the entire economy for their personal gain.
Then get bailed out with my and every other American's money.
To this day the fed. a bank is printing money like there is no tomorrow which directly effects me in a negative way(every dollar I earn is worth less) and giving it away to their banker cronies.
How does that not make them an enemy?

The current president and his administration Barney "Fanny and Freddy are fundamentally sound" Franks, Dodd/Frank's bill legalizing price-fixing in the banking industry; a trillion dollars spent to stimulate absolutely nothing but Treasury printing presses; a half-billion gift to a teetering Solar Energy company blown. I could go on. Are banks a problem? Yes. But they aren't the whole story. We all know if there wasn't a Democratic president in the WH, the OWS throngs would be directing their efforts there, not on Wall Street. The buck should stop with him, but he's too busy squandering every dime he can get his hands on (and now by Executive Order, no less!)

And that right there is how I can tell that some who are anti-OWS don't know SQUAT about it! We at OWS are pointing to more than just the banks--the government's willingness to accept money, bail out the banks, etc., makes them a target of OWS, too! We are angry at them! We are not all Democrats, we don't all love Obama, etc.

I think the crux of the issue is that MANY people don't believe the top 1% "earned" their riches, while SOME think they did. Forget what they do with the riches, or have the "right" to do with those riches, or whether those without riches are jealous. What matters is--how did the 1% get their wealth? Being born into it? Taking on a job as CEO in an already-established company with someone else's ideas? By having a staff of thousands of laborers who make their products on assembly lines for the worst pay imaginable? By "smartly" moving their companies overseas where there expenses are lower? Those things, to me, don't sound like they "earned" their money--it sounds like they stole it from many, many people. And if that doesn't affect every worker (YES, WORKER, MANY OCCUPIERS ARE EMPLOYED), then I don't know what does. WAKE UP PEOPLE! The idea that those in the 1% had some brilliant idea, made a company from the bottom up, and continued to work 60-hours a week as they climed to the top is UNTRUE for MOST of them! Not all, but most! These people are not innovaters--they are MANAGERS, who know how to work the system and profit off of other people's labor!

This comes from a person who--I'll say it one more time, though it probably won't make a difference--was an honor roll student all her life, got fully funded for college and graduate school, has an advanced degree already and is working on a PhD (so, you know, I think I'm pretty smart), has never EVER done drugs, and is part of an Occupy movement that is clean, orderly, and kind, and has not one instance of an Occupier doing drugs, using the restroom in public, or destroying any property! But hey, we're all socialist hippies who are looking for handouts while we continue to smoke our pot, right? WAY TO BE BRAINWASHED! At this point, you (the general "you," not just whoever I quoted above) simply don't WANT to understand if you can't accept that we aren't all the stereotype, so why keep talking here?

 

[beebrisk]

And that right there is how I can tell that some who are anti-OWS don't know SQUAT about it! We at OWS are pointing to more than just the banks--the government's willingness to accept money, bail out the banks, etc., makes them a target of OWS, too! We are angry at them! We are not all Democrats, we don't all love Obama, etc.

Exactly...So exactly where IS the outrage against Obama, Barney Frank? I certainly don't see it the way I saw it 3 years ago with the former president. Why not sleep in front of the WH? Where are the "Facist Obama!" "Nazi War Criminal Obama" signs???

Personally, I "credit" Barney and his Dem Congressman cronies for the collapse. It's what happens when you encourage your banker friends to hand out mortgages to the undeserving and pronounce that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound". The housing market tanks, the rest follows.

 

[CherryBlossom]

I'm talking about the doobie-smoking, public-peeing, tent-living folks. So no, I don't stereotype much. No more than most did with the Tea Party, that is.

And? there are multiple logical fallacies in your statement above

1) so what if there are doobie smoking, public peeing, tent living folks? You are drawing an assumption on a group based on the actions of some. That is simply a logical fallacy that cannot be validated. Literally be definition.

I have never done drugs, unless you count alcohol. I have not urinated in public since I was 6 years old, when my father made me pee in the bushes on the side of the freeway while we were driving from CA to Veil, and there was not a rest-stop in sight. I am a college graduate, I don't have debt, I have a job, I have healthcare, and I support the OWS movement 100%. Many more of us can be found here: http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

2) You claim that you don't stereotype much, yet bring up how Tea Part was as an example. Logical fallacy #2. The Tea Party was also stereotyped since some of those protestors brought weapons to protests, spat on members of congress, and screamed racist things about the president and immigrants. Stereotyping the entire Tea Party based on the actions of a few would also be wrong. But just because it was done, does not make you doing it any better. Get it? that would be logical fallacy #3

And thanks for proving my point. If you don't know WHAT Wall Street does, then how legitimate is this "movement"? If I were to get out and protest, I would know WTH I was talking about. Wouldn't you?

I don't think that you actually understand why they are targeting Wall Street, in fact I don't think you understand how protest movements begin or are built. Historically speaking... do you think it's this pretty thing that happens at a convention and people get together and vote on an MOU and everyone screams horray and carries a nice pretty flag around making demands? History is a good thing, study up on it.

 

[CherryBlossom]

And that right there is how I can tell that some who are anti-OWS don't know SQUAT about it! We at OWS are pointing to more than just the banks--the government's willingness to accept money, bail out the banks, etc., makes them a target of OWS, too! We are angry at them! We are not all Democrats, we don't all love Obama, etc.

Exactly...So exactly where IS the outrage against Obama, Barney Frank? I certainly don't see it the way I saw it 3 years ago with the former president. Why not sleep in front of the WH? Where are the "Facist Obama!" "Nazi War Criminal Obama" signs???

Personally, I "credit" Barney and his Dem Congressman cronies for the collapse. It's what happens when you encourage your banker friends to hand out mortgages to the undeserving and pronounce that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound". The housing market tanks, the rest follows.

Because these people don't FEEL like sleeping in front of the WH, they feel a bit more anger towards Wall Street. Maybe it's because of the fact that they know Wall Street brokers actually think like this guy who got on the BBC News and said this: "For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it," he said. "Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession...Governments Don't Rule The World, Goldman Sachs Rules The World" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA&feature=player_embedded

Just like many members of the Tea party did NOTHING and said NOTHING about George W. Bush or his bailouts and government waste. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

OR I can turn around and ask why folks on the Right glorify Ronald Regan, yet seem to forget (and didn't protest) that he did the following

" 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

4. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives."

See, you keep walking into these logical fallacies. Stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[MissStepcut]

21 jobs are not even a blip on the radar. They're not even the margin of error in the unemployment rate. Not to be insensitive to real people with real hardship, but YES focusing on that is a distraction.

I am conceding that the people on the street aren't the best representative of the people who want reform.

Yet it's okay that they cause what's not even a "blip on the radar" ?

It's an unfortunate consequence but we don't shut down everything in this country that has unfortunate consequences. If we did, birth control pills would have been pulled off the market the first time a woman had a stroke from using them.

As for political outrage, this is how political outrage works. I think Obama has done a pretty decent job. I think Bush's administration handled the crash & bail out brilliantly. I'm a card-carrying Republican and member of the Federalist Society. I'm also a former lobbyist who knows a little bit about the political process. Political pressure is best applied unambiguously. Protesting down in Washington and hollering at the federal government is not going to be nearly as effective as sending the message TO Washington FROM NYC. It's very specific: it's not about health care, or the deficit, or social security, or a million other political beefs people have. It is about the financial industry and the way policy treats it. It's the bad incentives Congress has created, it's about the coddling tax structure for investment banks, it's about traders knowing that Washington DC has their back so much that TODAY they trade mortgage-backed securities with the assumption of 0% default risk... because they know that if Freddie & Fannie go under, the government will see to it that Wall Street still gets paid.

 

[CherryBlossom]

21 jobs are not even a blip on the radar. They're not even the margin of error in the unemployment rate. Not to be insensitive to real people with real hardship, but YES focusing on that is a distraction.

I am conceding that the people on the street aren't the best representative of the people who want reform.

Yet it's okay that they cause what's not even a "blip on the radar" ?

It's an unfortunate consequence but we don't shut down everything in this country that has unfortunate consequences. If we did, birth control pills would have been pulled off the market the first time a woman had a stroke from using them.

As for political outrage, this is how political outrage works. I think Obama has done a pretty decent job. I think Bush's administration handled the crash & bail out brilliantly. I'm a card-carrying Republican and member of the Federalist Society. I'm also a former lobbyist who knows a little bit about the political process. Political pressure is best applied unambiguously. Protesting down in Washington and hollering at the federal government is not going to be nearly as effective as sending the message TO Washington FROM NYC. It's very specific: it's not about health care, or the deficit, or social security, or a million other political beefs people have. It is about the financial industry and the way policy treats it. It's the bad incentives Congress has created, it's about the coddling tax structure for investment banks, it's about traders knowing that Washington DC has their back so much that TODAY they trade mortgage-backed securities with the assumption of 0% default risk... because they know that if Freddie & Fannie go under, the government will see to it that Wall Street still gets paid.

What you just wrote is pretty damn brilliant and SEXY. Gotta love an educated woman who can break it down.

Have you seen this video by the way? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="CherryBlossom|
Just like many members of the Tea party did NOTHING and said NOTHING about George W. Bush or his bailouts and government waste. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

[/quote]

can you please update us on how much Obama spent after 3 yrs?...

 

[CherryBlossom]

[quote="CherryBlossom|
Just like many members of the Tea party did NOTHING and said NOTHING about George W. Bush or his bailouts and government waste. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

can you please update us on how much Obama spent after 3 yrs?... [/quote]

clearly you know there are VERY different scenarios at play here. For two things to be properly be compared to each other they must have basic things in common w/ one another.

I didn't give my example as a way to compare two things, I gave it as a point to show that while many members of the Tea Party claim to have a problem w/ spending/deficit/taxes etc. they never bothered protesting or screaming about it when it occurred under a Republican administration. I really wouldn't have a problem w/ them if they were consistent.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

believes that "the banks" are the enemy,

That I agree with banks are an enemy!
They together with the wall street crooks tanked the entire economy for their personal gain.
Then get bailed out with my and every other American's money.
To this day the fed. a bank is printing money like there is no tomorrow which directly effects me in a negative way(every dollar I earn is worth less) and giving it away to their banker cronies.
How does that not make them an enemy?

The current president and his administration Barney "Fanny and Freddy are fundamentally sound" Franks, Dodd/Frank's bill legalizing price-fixing in the banking industry; a trillion dollars spent to stimulate absolutely nothing but Treasury printing presses; a half-billion gift to a teetering Solar Energy company blown. I could go on. Are banks a problem? Yes. But they aren't the whole story. We all know if there wasn't a Democratic president in the WH, the OWS throngs would be directing their efforts there, not on Wall Street. The buck should stop with him, but he's too busy squandering every dime he can get his hands on (and now by Executive Order, no less!)

And that right there is how I can tell that some who are anti-OWS don't know SQUAT about it! We at OWS are pointing to more than just the banks--the government's willingness to accept money, bail out the banks, etc., makes them a target of OWS, too! We are angry at them! We are not all Democrats, we don't all love Obama, etc.

I think the crux of the issue is that MANY people don't believe the top 1% "earned" their riches, while SOME think they did.

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

 

[CherryBlossom]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.