You don't really know anything about OWS. One of the main complaints is certainly that the government is no longer working and helping people in the way it should.

Wall street essentially is the government. The two are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate them .

I Wear Pants;939112 wrote:You don't really know anything about OWS. One of the main complaints is certainly that the government is no longer working and helping people in the way it should.

Wall street essentially is the government. The two are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate them .

Then why are they not protesting Obama? It's hard to take the OWS movement seriously when the Democratic party has accepted it as it's own. After all, Obama is the exact type of President they claim to hate.

For god's sake Mr. Wall Street himself, Geithner, is Treasury Secretary. Obama isn't doing a damn thing to separate himself from Wall Street, just the opposite. Yet those yuppie hippies protesting are too stupid to realize that.

I Wear Pants;939112 wrote:You don't really know anything about OWS. One of the main complaints is certainly that the government is no longer working and helping people in the way it should.

Unless there is a foreign army invading my land I really do not want or need the federal governments help.

I Wear Pants;939112 wrote:Wall street essentially is the government. The two are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate them .

What if there was a tax plan that eliminated the federal government's ability to doll out favors via the tax code in the form of tax credits, incentives, etc..?

tk421;939119 wrote:Then why are they not protesting Obama? It's hard to take the OWS movement seriously when the Democratic party has accepted it as it's own. After all, Obama is the exact type of President they claim to hate.

Um, Obama would be included in the whole "government is no longer working and helping people in the way it should".

And you realize "it's hard to take the OWS movement seriously when the Democratic party has accepted it as it's own" is equally true if you substitute "Tea Party" and "Republican" right?

majorspark;939134 wrote:Unless there is a foreign army invading my land I really do not want or need the federal governments help.



What if there was a tax plan that eliminated the federal government's ability to doll out favors via the tax code in the form of tax credits, incentives, etc..?

What about that gripe doesn't jive with "no longer working and helping people in the way it should"?

The tax thing would be nice. But I also want lobbying to be looked at. Shit is out of control.

I Wear Pants;939152 wrote:What about that gripe doesn't jive with "no longer working and helping people in the way it should"?

It doesn't But by the feds "helping people" they want more federal government involvement outside of that statement and lots of it.

I Wear Pants;939152 wrote:The tax thing would be nice. But I also want lobbying to be looked at. Shit is out of control.

There already is one plan out there. Why do you think the lobbying shit is out of control? Because the feds can do something for them via the tax code. Take that away and it would be pointless to lobby on tax issues. Regulations would be another dynamic when it comes to the lobbying issue.

majorspark;939134 wrote:Unless there is a foreign army invading my land I really do not want or need the federal governments help.

unfortunately there is a foreign invasion happening, but our government under both parties would rather ignore it and sue states that try and pass laws to combat the problem.

tk421;939194 wrote:unfortunately there is a foreign invasion happening, but our government under both parties would rather ignore it and sue states that try and pass laws to combat the problem.

Yes, combating the problem like Alabama making it illegal to give a ride to or feed an illegal immigrant.

I Wear Pants;939112 wrote:You don't really know anything about OWS. One of the main complaints is certainly that the government is no longer working and helping people in the way it should.

Wall street essentially is the government. The two are so intertwined that it's difficult to separate them .

so are the 99% and the 1%. i wonder how many of the 99% that actually have jobs work for the 1% or use products made by the 1%.

I Wear Pants;939200 wrote:Yes, combating the problem like Alabama making it illegal to give a ride to or feed an illegal immigrant.

sounds like aiding criminals in commission of a felony. why not?

Glory Days;939207 wrote:sounds like aiding criminals in commission of a felony. why not?

Fuck you if you're telling me that I should be jailed for feeding someone. It's inhuman.

I Wear Pants;939200 wrote:Yes, combating the problem like Alabama making it illegal to give a ride to or feed an illegal immigrant.

Show me where in the law it say you can't feed a hungry illegal immigrant. As for giving them a ride I believe its in the context of transporting them to perform illegal activities at the job site. I have not taken time to read the law so I would have to double check.

I honestly believe many liberals will only be happy when everyone is equally poor. Bizarre and ridiculous as that sounds, research shows people tend to measure wealth/success relative to their peers rather than in absolute terms. This defeatist attitude of the deck being stacked against you so the govt needs to "correct inequities" is just un-American. Although today I suppose we call it progressive "thinking".

Stossel a libertarian who sympathizes with some of their thoughts gets accosted.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/1225335172001/stossel-visits-wall-street-protesters/?playlist_id=86923?test=faces

majorspark;939451 wrote:Stossel a libertarian who sympathizes with some of their thoughts gets accosted.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/1225335172001/stossel-visits-wall-street-protesters/?playlist_id=86923?test=faces

85% of these clowns have jobs most likely directly or indirectly associated with the greedy Wall Street capitalists they protest. They simply want forced redistribution of wealth so everyone has an equal share of unearned mediocrity.

"I honestly believe many liberals will only be happy when everyone is equally poor."

Many is a term of art, but likely the 5-10% on each side have such screwy ideas that they are non-credible.

I didn't go to school (higher education that is) with too many right-wing whackos, probably the closest was a Catholic guy (from Cleveland, no less) griping about religious bigotry.

In law school (a T-14 school), I listened to one person seriously stating that fixing elections are fine as long as the candidate that deserves to win does win - i.e. democracy doesn't matter, as long as it is the right thing to do (right being whatever his opinion is - which was mega-liberal)....but the one that took the proverbial cake was a woman stating that abortion should be a criminal matter with the criminal act being against the fetus for committing battery against the pregnant woman.

In short, there are idiots on every level of education, and in every situation.

Manhattan Buckeye;939472 wrote:"I honestly believe many liberals will only be happy when everyone is equally poor."

Many is a term of art, but likely the 5-10% on each side have such screwy ideas that they are non-credible.

I didn't go to school (higher education that is) with too many right-wing whackos, probably the closest was a Catholic guy (from Cleveland, no less) griping about religious bigotry.

In law school (a T-14 school), I listened to one person seriously stating that fixing elections are fine as long as the candidate that deserves to win does win - i.e. democracy doesn't matter, as long as it is the right thing to do (right being whatever his opinion is - which was mega-liberal)....but the one that took the proverbial cake was a woman stating that abortion should be a criminal matter with the criminal act being against the fetus for committing battery against the pregnant woman.

In short, there are idiots on every level of education, and in every situation.

While true, I'm betting that since you were in law school, you saw far more "idiots" of the liberal persuasion.

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-wynn-goes-on-big-rant-about-occupy-wall-street-obama-deficits-and-anger-at-the-government-2011-10

QuakerOats;939637 wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-wynn-goes-on-big-rant-about-occupy-wall-street-obama-deficits-and-anger-at-the-government-2011-10

Conveniently ignores the deficit creating policies that Republicans support. He's simply trying to protect his interests.

I Wear Pants;939639 wrote:Conveniently ignores the deficit creating policies that Republicans support. He's simply trying to protect his interests.

Fail. Repub's support major deficit reduction by reducing spending (as you know). If we just rolled back obama's massive and unprecedented 30% spending increase over the last couple years, we would be just about in balance. But as you also know, this is now a war between those who want more BIG government vs. those who want LESS government. That is all it is, and most of us are ready and willing to fight the fight.

As a former member of the Republican Party, the post immediately above this is nonsense. Neither party is the least bit interested in cutting spending as each has sacred cows that absolutely must be sacrificed to accomplish the goal.

queencitybuckeye;939710 wrote:Neither party is the least bit interested in cutting spending as each has sacred cows that absolutely must be sacrificed to accomplish the goal.

this

queencitybuckeye;939710 wrote:As a former member of the Republican Party, the post immediately above this is nonsense. Neither party is the least bit interested in cutting spending as each has sacred cows that absolutely must be sacrificed to accomplish the goal.

I agree with every iota of this.

queencitybuckeye;939710 wrote:As a former member of the Republican Party, the post immediately above this is nonsense. Neither party is the least bit interested in cutting spending as each has sacred cows that absolutely must be sacrificed to accomplish the goal.

You could be right, thus I would endorse editing the post to insert the word conservative.

QuakerOats;939760 wrote:You could be right, thus I would endorse editing the post to insert the word conservative.

Then the true Conservatives need to stand behind a truly "conservative" candidate.