BS: Wall Street Protesters...

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Songwronger
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 10:02 PM

Hey, I'm in agreement with the 99% folks. There has to be change. Unfortunately it's pretty late in the game, and the people who've taken the field are being run around in circles. The 1% has fled, and now they're stirring up the left-behinds. The 99% COULD take control of the situation and effect change, but that won't happen as long as they allow themselves to be directed by their current corps of handlers. The elite will suck all the energy out of OWS the way they sucked money out of the banks. OWS needs unified, strong demands. The longer the movement goes without them, the less effective it will be.

Clinton and Glass-Steagall. So Reagan made him repeal it? Jeez. Learn something new every day. I missed the photo of Reagan holding the gun to his head. And what else? Oh, NAFTA. Did Bush make Clinton sign that? And did Bush Jr. make Obama run up a 15 trillion dollar taxpayer tab with his stimulus package? So it's Republicans that make Democrats do all these things? Good to know.

Spoiler alert: the Democratic and Republican presidents have been working together to destroy America's middle class, and at the end of the show millions of extras are sitting on the curbs in front of their seized homes and wailing about Republicans and racism. A downer ending. I'd rewrite it if I could.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 10:23 PM

Bill Clinton was a Nixon Republican... I wouldn't have voted for him as dog catcher... I was pounding doors for Green Party...

So what???

The reality is that the FAT CATS on Wall St. absconded with a $14T of someone else's money...

Here's where I kinda have to part from Nomi's analysis... TARP had a dollar amount... TARP is over... Why do we make this the government's fault??? I mean, the banks are stealin' from everyone they can... And the Tea Party Republicans said that's fine with them... We don't need Washington meddling in our affairs...

And that's the way it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 11:27 PM

"And did Bush Jr. make Obama run up a 15 trillion dollar taxpayer tab with his stimulus package?"

Bush ran up half that tab, SS.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Songwronger
Date: 20 Oct 11 - 11:52 PM

No, no, no. Bush had his "bailout." And it was so good that Obama got sloppy seconds with his "stimulus." Together they took about 25 trillion dollars from American taxpayers with that one-two. And Obama got greedy just recently and tried to dip in again with his "jobs program," but people saw it for the third bailout it really was and rejected it.

The real fun will begin when the Bank of America claims U.S. taxpayers are responsible for their 75 trillion worth of derivatives debt. Politicians will test the waters to see if they can get away with it, and if they can, they'll saddle us with that. And Obama will say Bush made him do it, or the Tea Party or something like that, and diehard Democrats will support him.

Meanwhile, Democrats aren't working to get that monster out of office. They're being "politically active" with the OWS protests. Makes me want to cry. Obama the mass murderer is going to slither into another nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:19 AM

. . . little Mary Sunshine. . . .

Why don't we just give up, eh?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 08:51 AM

FACT: The dollar amount of Obama's stimulus package was $700B, of which $300B went into "shovel ready" projects and $400B went into less stimulating tax cuts...

MYTHOLOGY: "Together they took about 25 trillion dollars"

SUMMATION: The above poster is part of the ObamaHateBrigade and rather than use facts just makes up stuff??? I mean, why not $100T, songwronger??? No, make it $10G (as in gazillion)...

Now, I ain't exactly happy with Obama but the mythology of the right wing is absolutely astounding and imaginative...

But there is a nugget of truth in there and that is the banks have created several "products" (what a strange word???) that they use to siphon cash out of their corrupt banking practices... Derivatives and credit default swaps should be illegal... This is theft... This is why banks aren't making those loans to small businesses... They are too busy figuring out how to game their own selves??? Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:04 AM

Do the math on the national debt:

Date               Debt

09/30/2010        $13,561,623,030,891.78
09/30/2000        $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/28/1990        $3,233,313,451,777.25
12/31/1980        $930,210,000,000.00
12/31/1970        $389,158,403,690.26
12/30/1960        $290,216,815,241.68
06/30/1950        $257,357,352,351.04
06/29/1940        $42,967,531,037.68
06/30/1930        $16,185,309,831.43
07/01/1920        $25,952,456,406.16
07/01/1910        $2,652,665,838.04
07/01/1900        $2,136,961,091.67
07/01/1890        $1,552,140,204.73
07/01/1880        $2,120,415,370.63
07/01/1870        $2,480,672,427.81
07/01/1860        $64,842,287.88
07/01/1850        $63,452,773.55
01/01/1840        $3,573,343.82
01/01/1830        $48,565,406.50
01/01/1820        $91,015,566.15
01/01/1810        $53,173,217.52
01/01/1800        $82,976,294.35

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:10 AM

Homeowners want to keep their homes. To date, there have been about $1 billion of SEC mortgage-related "settlements" with Wall Street. They are negotiated absent requiring any admission of guilt, nor a dial-back of foreclosures or increase in refinancings to help borrowers. With $7 trillion of value lost from the housing market in the past few years, people understandably want to revise their economic profiles. ~ Maomi Prins

That is the lowest estimate I have heard. Some guess it is closer to a $17 trillion drop in the value just of residential real estate.

TARP bailout funds totaled about $770 billion, $420 billion of which was spent after Obama took office.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:36 AM

Students want affordable education. Due to our current monetary policy of near zero-rate money, banks receive exceedingly cheap financing terms, which they have not bestowed upon their degree-seeking customers. ~ Naomi Prins, again

Sounds like she missed this one since Obama ended all federal-susidized student loans. All such money comes directly from the federal bureaucracy now and none is meaded out through private lenders.

Note that federal-subsidized loans are dead, not federal student loans which are going strong.

Oh, and there is at least $1 trillion in student loans outstanding that people have no intentions of paying back.

Some of that money is owed by members of Congress!

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 10:40 AM

I hope the folks that make up the OWS are more focussed than those camped out in the churcyard of St.Pauls Cathedral in London. A little investigation has shown that the assembly has attracted, apart from those concerned with questioning the financial world and anti-capitalists, a hotch-potch of others. Anti fox hunting group, street singers on about world peace, vegan cake makers, a few of the usual "rentamob", computer hackers, anti war and arms dealers, climate change scaremongers and no doubt some other miscellaneous mal-contents. The sad thing about it is that there is no concensus among them as to what to do and how to do it. They are no better informed or equipped than the politicians and financiers against whom they are venting their spleen.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 11:14 AM

"The sad thing about it is that there is no concensus among them as to what to do and how to do it."

Sounds like they'd be naturals for government, pick a country.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 11:58 AM

Actually, there is a lot of consensus with OWS...

End the wars

Tax the rich

Get $$$$ out of politics...

Kill Citizen's United...

Bring back Glass-Steagall...

etc....

Now if ya'll want 200 page "white papers", forget it... That is not what we are about... That's just the current right wing's attack on the movement... Our conversation... Not yours... We won't get fooled again...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 12:41 PM

Let's hope not, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Lox
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

PDQ - I found a million websites atating that Obama "recommended" ending subsidized student loans - none that say he actually did it ...

Besides - this recommendatiion came about in feb 2011 (in august this was still not policy)

When did Prins make her comments?


I think you will find that she has missed nothing but is 100% on top of her game.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Lox
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:10 PM

Yes - there we are - The bill would come into effect in July 2012 ...

So I am sorry to be the one to tell you pdq but you are misinformed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:12 PM

"That's both the funniest & most inane statement you've come up with in a long time, Sawz, & believe me, it has some tough competition. "

You can prove that by actually discussing the facts instead of using ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 01:46 PM

Mark Kantrowitz / Publisher of FinAid and Fastweb

September 22, 2009

The US House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (SAFRA) on September 17, 2009 by a party-line vote of 253 to 171.

This legislation eliminates the federally-guaranteed student loan program and replaces it with 100% direct lending from the federal government. SAFRA uses the savings to fund an increase in the Pell Grant program among other initiatives. The US Senate is expected to consider its own version of the legislation within a few weeks.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that ending the origination of federal education loans by banks and other financial institutions would save the federal government $87 billion over the next ten years.

The education lenders countered with their own proposal, but the CBO scored it as saving $13 billion less. The Obama administration argues that the Direct Loan program saves the government money by eliminating the middleman. However, much of the savings comes from the federal government's lower cost of funds.

From a practical perspective, most students will not notice much of a difference between the Direct Loan and federally-guaranteed student loan programs. Money is fungible — it's still green whether it comes from a bank or from the US Department of Education.

The Direct Loan program has a lower interest rate on the PLUS loan program (7.9% versus 8.5%) due to a legislative drafting error that was never corrected. PLUS loan approval rates are also higher in the Direct Loan program. Customer service is a bit better during the loan origination process in the Direct Loan program, but a bit worse during repayment.

However, the US Department of Education has awarded contracts to four of the largest education lenders to service loans in the Direct Loan program. The SAFRA legislation has no impact on existing student loans or borrowers who have already graduated.

About half of the savings will be used to index the maximum Pell Grant to the inflation rate plus 1%. It would increase to $5,550 in 2010-2011 and likely reach $6,900 by 2019-2020. However, it does not turn the Pell Grant into a true entitlement program. Congress could still cut Pell Grant funding during the annual budget appropriations process as it did in 2008.

The legislation also eliminates all of the asset questions and many of the untaxed income questions on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), cutting about a page from the six-page form. This will eliminate any penalty for savings in the federal need analysis formula, so there will no longer be any disincentive to saving for college.

SAFRA includes several provisions relating to student loans. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduate students will switch to a variable rate capped at 6.8% starting on July 1, 2012. Otherwise the interest rate would have increased from 3.4% to 6.8% on that date, a big jump.

Annual funding for the Perkins Loan program would increase four-fold from $1.5 billion to $6.0 billion a year. While the new Perkins loan would no longer have subsidized interest, the interest rate would remain at 5.0%. Students at many more colleges would become eligible for the Perkins loan.

The new College Access Challenge Grant program would be focused on increasing enrollment, persistence and completion rates. It would fund financial literacy programs and make it easier for students to transfer from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. There would also be a significant increase in funding for community colleges and minority institutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 02:07 PM

Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA)

Provisions of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) were included in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA) of 2010, which was signed into law by President Obama on March 30, 2010. The legislation makes college more affordable for millions of Americans, at no new cost to taxpayers.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would generate $61 billion in net savings over the next 10 years by ending the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The reconciliation bill directs those savings to students and families by:

    * Investing $36 billion over 10 years to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant award to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017. Starting in 2013, the award will indexed at the Consumer Price Index and increase with costs-of-living. This includes an investment of $13.5 billion to fund the shortfall due to increased Pell Grant demand;
    * Investing $750 million to bolster college access and completion support for students, part of which will increase funding for the College Access Challenge Grant program;
    * Making federal loans more affordable for borrowers to repay by investing $1.5 billion to strengthen an Income-Based Repayment program. New provisions would lower the monthly cap to just 10 percent (currently 15 percent) of discretionary income for new borrowers after 2014; and
    * Investing $2 billion in a competitive grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs.

In addition, the SAFRA directs $10 billion of savings back to the U.S. Treasury toward deficit reduction.


{This shows that the provisions were indeed passed and became law. The glowing sales pitch above is pure propaganda as the real result was to end federal-guaranteed student loans and put the decision-makig power firmly in the hands of federal activists and thei friends.}

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 02:42 PM

Quote any little snippets you like.
If you look at all the facts, it is very clear how we ended up here.
Everyone in the USA should be required to read this.
If you get to the end and don't agree - fine (but please use data to refute).
But it should be required reading.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dfjpnvj7_362gqsrdddt&revision=_latest&start=0&theme=blank&cwj=true

slide show

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 03:14 PM

TIA has pretty much summed it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 03:44 PM

Thanks for posting that, TIA!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 05:14 PM

I've seen that graph before and heard it described as the "bikini graph"... Purdy much sums up Reaganomics... A completely dumb idea gone from dumber to dumbest when the economy was on verge of going off the cliff in September of 2008... And here's the kicker... The Republican presidential candidates all want even more of it???

Thanks for posting it, TIA...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 08:45 PM

The reason that the Wall Street Protests work is that the protesters have connected the dots and can't be pinned down to a sound byte issue.

Corporations and banksters are greedy. They make lots of money which they spend on:

1. war
2. pollution
3. destroying the middle class
4. destroying small businesses
5. paying CEO's too much at the expense of the taxpayer
6. foreclosures
7. cutting benefits for poor and middle class
8. supporting shadow organizations like ALEC
9. supporting politicians by buying them off
10. suppressing free speech (by buying off the main stream media)
11. buying off the police in New York City who pepper spray and abuse demonstrators
12. destroying unions
13. allowing lobbying to dominate politicians
14. gambling with taxpayer's money
15. being sociopaths
16. shipping jobs overseas
17. flaunting their wealth with champagne toasts while people are hungry

(The beat goes on. What's not to understand?)

Fortunately the demonstrators are smart enough not to be collared by some pundit.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 08:48 PM

BINGO, Strings...

This is why the right wing is pushing this mythology that OWS doesn't have any positions... No, it has plenty... No 200 page "white papers", thank you... And there won't be any... That's a trap...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Oct 11 - 08:54 PM

"Corporations and banksters are greedy. They make lots of money which they spend on:"

They make money from that list of things, SS. It's simply re-investments to them.

"Monetarily, in 1940 dollars, the estimated cost [of WW II to the USA] was $288 Billion. In 2007 dollars this would amount to approximately $5 Trillion. In addition, the effects of the war on the U.S. economy were that it decisively ended the depression and created a booming economic windfall. Because the United States mainland was untouched by the war her economic wealth and prosperity soared as she became the world leader in manufacturing, technology, industry and agriculture."

It's a mere bagatelle in comparison, but there is still 60 billion dollars unaccounted for from the war in Iraq. Wasn't my money so I ain't complaining, but it makes me wonder why youse guys aren't asking about it. Sixty billion here, 500 billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:16 AM

Guest 999,

It's important to connect the dots. You are right. Naturally, the investors don't care about the American public. They wouldn't care about the stolen money in Iraq either.

I don't completely buy the theory that the effects of the war ended the great depression by itself. Roosevelt's policies in place had a lot to do with what followed.

One proof for this is that the US has conducted at least three wars and is still sliding
into a depression. One reason is that the country doesn't support these wars. There are holdouts from the 1940's who remember the so-called Great War and have a fantasy about it returning to the old days when life for them was less complex. Most Americans according to polls don't think the US incursions are doing much good.

This is another reason why people are in the streets. They are asked to pay for useless wars so that GE and other contractors can make money for their greedy CEO's.

You say it's business as usual but I say it's sociopathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 10:25 PM

Seems that everyone who is threatened by OWS wants details...

Hey, the details are for Congressional staffers...

End the wars and tax the rich...

Income inequality...

Corrupt electoral system...

I mean, this ain't all that tough...

I'm tired... I was the "drummer boy" today and I drummed and drummed and I'm tired...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: gnu
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 11:06 PM

Many are tired Bobert... gotta get big money outta governing... just one problem... big money pays and big money says... and there ain't nuthin you or I can do about it short of using force and that ain't viable is it?

Protest all ya want but what's it really gonna do? The rich use cruise missiles. I gotta a shotgun. Yer welcome to it. But I just don't see it makin any difference.

Maybe a rocket launcher?

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 11 - 11:36 PM

Well, gn-ze... Two choices... Let the rich continue playin' "Deliverance" with *US* or not...

Your pick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 12:55 AM

The rocket launcher of politics is the organized voting bloc.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 03:14 AM

Suppose you're right, Dick. Let's look at the picture.

There will be three 'sets' of elections for 2012's 'new' federal government.

1) President: Some Repub or Obama.

2) Senate: at present, 57 Dems, 41 Repubs, 2 Inds. Of those seats, 23 Dems are up for re-election and 10 Repubs are up for re-election.

Just suppose every contested seat could be filled with an Ind. The Senate would then look like this: 35 Inds, 34 Repubs and 31 Dems. There might be a workable Senate. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Unless people are as thoroughly fed up with Senators as OWS people seem to be, we can expect about the same numbers as exist at present.

3) House: At present, 242 Repubs, 193 Dems. Unless there is some fancy footwork, what's gonna change? How can the Repubs be caused to lose over 24 seats?

##############################################

Looks like the rocket launcher is gonna fizzle unless the power of the Senate can be broken. And who's gonna put cash behind independents, and if no one does, what's really gonna change? And if Wall Street does, it's just more same ol same ol and still nothing changes. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 08:12 AM

As long as the corporation have complete control of the language we use to discuss our dilemma and complete control of the media by which it distributes misinfomation voting will only give us SSDD...

Garbage in = garbage out...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 11:39 AM

Inds ain't worth much when it comes to getting things done. If the TEa Party can control the GOP nomination process to the point that Perry is too liberal when it comes to immigration an Cain is threatened because of hi "liberal waffling about abortion in cases of rape and incest, the pattern for taking over a party is pretty well established.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 01:33 PM

Senate: at present, 57 Dems, 41 Repubs, 2 Inds. Of those seats, 23 Dems are up for re-election and 10 Repubs are up for re-election. ~ GUEST,999

Actually, that would have been the count ia a past Congress after Scott Brown unexpectedly took the Kennedy Seat away, reducing the Democrat's 60-vote fillibuster-proof majority to 59.

Current count is 51 Democrat and 47 Republican, with Lieberman and Sanders ostensibly independents, but they meet, caucus and vote with the Democrats. They were both labled Senate Democrats at one time.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 02:05 PM

Thanks for the correction, pdq. I was writing that early this morning and must have been looking at old data. From my perspective, it then makes things un-doable in the Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: pdq
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 02:45 PM

Just something to think about...

In 2006, with the House and Senate in Republican control, they (total for both houses) introduced 2759 pieces of legislation.

After the Democrats won the Trifecta of House, Senate and presidency in the 2008 election, Ried and Pelosi introduced 9071 pieces of legislation in 2009 including ObamaCare which had nearly 3000 pages in that one bill!

Yes millions of pages of legislation to micromanage every aspect of our lives.

No wonder the country went into apoplexy.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 02:58 PM

"Micromanage?'

Trying to see that people who otherwise couldn't afford it can get decent medical care is hardly "micromanaging."

Wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare, especially when some very wealthy people are paying no taxes at all, and are, in fact, getting hefty bonuses for such things as unethical business practices and laying people off their jobs, on the other hand, most definitly IS.

Which might just have something to do with Occupy Wall Street.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 03:01 PM

Dick, I disagree. I think the key to a 'fairer' Senate would be a healthy number of Independents. At least enough to make the defeat of bad bills possible. I think neither Dems or Repubs should have the ability to get stuff through all by themselves. Imagine a Senate with a 40/40/20 split. Yes, it would slow things a bit, but that's not a bad idea. It would force bills to be debated and restructured. There has been altogether too much pushed through with 'attachments' or 'riders' that make for terrible precedent and even worse law. If I voted in your country, I would not vote for anyone aligned with either main party--hell, they were and are the parties that have brought the USA to the present state it's in. And it's ugly, despised and/or mistrusted around the world, hated (as it is) by millions of its own citizens.

I would hope independents would have the balls to tell lobbyists for Wall Street "You have five minutes of my time, and the clock starts now." It might begin to change a few things. But give people what they have had all along, however cleverly disguised, and your country will fall because Americans themselves will no longer 'believe' in their elected reps. OWS no longer do, and imo they are just the beginning of a real grassroots movement that will rock the foundations of your democracy. I think your founding fathers would be proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 11 - 03:57 PM

I hate to say it but if the OWS movement doesn't bust up Boss Hog's ballgame then the US is well on it's way to becoming a failed state...

1/2 of American families now live under $26,000 a year...

The government's "official" poverty threshold for a family of 4 is $22,400 a year...

This is a formula for not just a revolution but a violent one at that...

The righties think this a a big joke...

Yeah, haha...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 03:48 AM

I see the great unwashed have decided to block the path of those who wish to follow their faith. Tramps, send in the army and hose the bastards off the streets and stop their benefits.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2052650/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Make-mistake-disillusionment-entire-political-class-blame-St-

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Lox
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 06:03 AM

Surprise surprise - Melanie Philips of the Mail inventing crap about those getting more attention than her.

How sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 11:25 AM

The power of OWS is that it doesn't embrace a single soundbyte issue for the media.
It is powerful and will change the system and bring democracy back to America because
that's what Americans (overwhelming majority of them) want.

"Politicians hear our thunder. Get off the track or you'll fall under!"

People's Train, the Occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 01:24 PM

Just what do you mean by "change the system"?

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,999
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 01:43 PM

Well, for starters, it would be nice to get 60 million people above the poverty line, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 01:52 PM

$26000 a year would be plenty if gas were still 50 cents a gallon and bread was 30 cents a loaf.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 02:13 PM

No private money in elections.
Public financing.
Fixed amount, then that's it.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 05:14 PM

The mentiion of campaign contributions brings up a matter that may merit a closer look.

When Sarah Palin leapt into national prominence as a Vice Presidential candidate, one of the first things she did with the campaign contributions was spend about $150,000 on a new wardrobe.

Then she gallivants all over the country, does television interviews, provides vast quantities of material for comedians like Tina Fay, and generally gets her ego stroked.

She quits her regular job (Governor of Alaska) to concentrate more on the presidential election, which leads to more campaign contributions (from people more bewildered than she is)—then she withdraws from the race!

None of the contributed money is going to where the contributors intended.

Isn't that what is generally known as a scam?

Just curious. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 05:46 PM

Would be for the "scam-ees" to complain, one would think- 'cept they're too goddamn stupid & they still love her. No facts need apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 05:48 PM

Yeah, when you think about the cost of replacing a blown engine in a 15 year old Honda then 1/2 of American families are one blown engine away from poverty...

I agree with Strings... OWS will "change the system" because the system has become badly corrupted by the crooks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Wall Street Protesters...
From: Songwronger
Date: 24 Oct 11 - 06:23 PM

Well since I'm here, 500.