Occupy Wall Street protest

[russtafa]

gee what shit holes

[hard4janira]

I empathize with people. If you don't, well, that's your choice. It's your choice not to care about other people.

Utter and complete bullshit. I care about poeple plenty. I've donated over 2,000 dollars in 2011 alone to tsunami relief in Japan and tornado destruction in Alabama. If the federal government let me keep more of my money I'd be able to donate more to causes that I think are worthy. Instead, I have to worry about a corrupt and immoral federal government (who is not held accountable whatsoever for the ENORMOUS debt that they have amassed BUYING VOTES). The federal government does nothing but promote class warfare and attempt to make villians out of the hard workers and producers in this country. I'm not even in the 1% and I can see this. I am in the 99%, just like the rest of you losers, but it is clear to me just how much the federal government despises me and everything that I stand for and am trying to achieve for myself and my family.

Health care is not a right. You do not have a right to a job or a roof over your head. These arent rights. Your rights are inalienable and they have been enumerated for you in the Constitution. Everything else is bullshit. How the government possible make the claim that you have a right to health care when they have to find a way to pay for it? So what happens when the government goes bankrupt like Greece? We're already 15 trillion in debt, what happens when Uncle Sams credit goes bust and the health care and social security checks stop rolling in? Doen't do much good to insist that it was a right when if they can't affort to pay for it.

It's an absurdity to think that we've abandoned poeple in this country. We tried to reform welfare in the 90's but I have wonder what good that did. The food stamp program has gone from a 10 billion dollar program to an 80 billion dollar program in under a decade. This is government simply re-distributing wealth, this has nothing to do with 'hungry' poeple. The poor in America are OBESE, not starving. The poor in America have air-conditiniong and cable TV. The poor in America have government sponsered programs that give them access to the internet and cell phones. Everywhere I look I see free libraries and transit systems that people can take advantage of educate themselves.

The government is going into debt because of Social Security and Medicare, programs designed specifically for the middle class and the elderly. How can anybody say that America has neglected the poor when 2/3 of our debt are social programs? What a complete absurdity. The fact is the people in the country are WEAK mentally. We have created and fostered a hand-out, welfare culture and now we are suffering the consequences. We have generations of people who expect things to be given to them and are encouraged to be angry and spiteful if they don't get them.

I honestly hope that the US goes bankrupt one day and is forced to live within its means. I would NEVER vote to raise the debt ceiing if I were a member of congress. What a bunch of evil liars and theives these politicans are, buying votes with borrowed and stolen money. Time is coming! Time is coming when you will pay dearly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stavros]

We may not be talking about the same thing here. I've never brought up campaign financing at all, and I don't know the campaign finance details of the representatives that were elected into office claiming to represent the Tea Party. Do you or are you just assuming? In fact, I'd wager that most corporate money DIDN'T go to tea party canddiates, because the Corporations and the Unions already have thier lackies in office (from both parties) - the Tea Party represents the anti-RINO movement and corporate America doesn't know what they are going to get from them. But even then, I'm not opposed to any corporation, organization, or individual giving whatever they want to finance anybodies campagn. I am against so-called campaign finance reform.

If you believe that regualations (think beyond wall street) have made if impossible for American corporations to compete globally (and I do), then you don't have a problem with idea of clearing away the beaurocratic red tape around a government regulation - If government keeps making it harder and harder for companties to compete (Obamacare) then they have every right lobby for and root for minimal government and I am right there with them.

And I say again: the way to show you have a 'passion' for the market is to let the market work. Don't bailout companies that should go bankrupt. Don't create institutions that implicitly guarantee 75% of all the mortgages in the country. It seems really simple to me, this concept of creative destruction that no politician has the balls to let unfold.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that my only two options are free markets with zero regulation or I'm totally bought by corporate America?

Only politicians 'guarnatee' jobs. We will have to disagree on the value of a large vs. a small government. I believe earnestly that government spending should be capped at 15% of GDP - we have seen the damage caused by government that cannot control spending. I think having a large public sector work force is bad becuase they don't produce anything. Something has to be produced first in the private sector and then taxed so that there is money to pay the public sector workers. We should remove the chains that burded private sector jobs (such as an oppressive tax code) and let the private sector grow (which it will - I have no doubt) and let the public sector shrink.

1) Americans for Prosperity is funded by the Koch brothers -Peggy Venable who organized a TP 'Summit' in Austin called Texas Defending the American Dream explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”

Same article (the one I referred you to) quotes Axelrod -David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

2) I would not be surprised if the volume of regulation in some industries has grown beyond its usefulness and has become inefficient, and detrimental to small businesses -the point is that regulation is a necessity, so its about getting it right, not getting it trashed. The either/or mentality that you get from people like Perry obscures the way in which regulatory agencies work -there are reasons why the Federal government imposes standards on businesses, I don't think you disagree with the idea companies large and small should not be allowed to whatever they want, so its about the finesse with which regulatory agencies operate.

3) Markets -there is an argument for not bailing out a business if it is so badly managed it goes bust; I can see the point of that -but you know as well as I that on both sides of the Atlantic over decades Conservatives have protected failure and thus defied the market. As we have discussed before, this is because there are times when business failure condemns thousands people to unemployment in one day. Political suicide.
But what I was also trying to argue is that if an industry goes overseas and communities suffer, their lack of purchasing power deflates their local market, maybe not other markets where people in work continue to purchase -capitalism is an integrated system, but is it not ironic that it was Marx who described this commodification of everything, pointing out that everything in a capitalist society can be bought and sold-? Hayek was addicted to the idea of markets and private property as the repository of freedom itself, but made no attempt to understand the moral economy that existed before money, his only moral value is selfishness, not even politicians on the right, Pinochet excepted, can stomach that.
The problem with markets in capitalism is that they are both a cause and a solution to problems, which is why saying that the market is the solution is only half the argument.

3) Jobs -I was taking onmyknees to task for his criitique of my critique of his defence of capitalism red in tooth and claw -the Federal government, and state governments are major employers in the USA, and there does seem to be an excess of it, but that's how your Congress works, dishing out the prizes everytime a bill is passed.
70% or thereabouts of the economies of Wales and Northern Ireland are based on central and local government contracts and subsidies, directly or indirectly; without them those places would have next to nothing, and probably 70% unemployment.
We have got ourselves into a situation where population increases and industrial decline have produced a huge bulge of people with no hope of getting a 'proper job', industries have responded to market pressure by dissolving or relocating to Asia. Keynes offered solutions to a slump in the business cycle, it was not an alternative economic policy, but that is what we have. Politicians do create jobs, and probably too many; but where else are jobs going to come from? Heavy industry has gone; light industry creates a few hundred jobs; video games, supermarkets and restaurants collectively employ a few thousand -even commercial farms can round up thousands of acres of corn with two guys and a machine; no more Days of Heaven.

Which is why Tea Party enthusiasts, RINO's or whatever you call them are deluded fools -the capitalist system in the USA continues to charge forward, but it no longer needs the tired, the poor and the hungry -they are what is left rotting on the street when the bus leaves town. There will be a recovery in the USA and the UK, but the volume of jobs will never return to what it was in the 1950s, it's as brutal as that. And nobody ever said capitalism was fair, but its the only game in town.

[hard4janira]

1) Americans for Prosperity is funded by the Koch brothers -Peggy Venable who organized a TP 'Summit' in Austin called Texas Defending the American Dream explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”

Same article (the one I referred you to) quotes Axelrod -David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

So what? Are you suggesting that the 1% shouldn't participate in a democracy? If I had Koch like money I can assure you that I would be doing the same thing - supporting organizations and movements that reflect my personal political philosophy. Are you trying to imply that the Tea Party isn't a grass roots movement because the Koch brothers have funded a particular tea party organization? There are LOTS of tea party organizations out there - most of which have never received a dime from the Koch brothers (I know because I belong to one). Furthermore, Americans for Prosperity hasn't been annointed as the difinitive voice of the Tea Party movement. In fact, I think that Freedomworks is an even more influential voice within the movement, and they get a lot grass-roots money.

Besides, do you honestly think that there isn't big money behind the OWS movement? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...cupy-wall.html

I'd wager that there is as much 1% money going to that movement as there is the Tea Party movement.

I would not be surprised if the volume of regulation in some industries has grown beyond its usefulness and has become inefficient, and detrimental to small businesses -the point is that regulation is a necessity, so its about getting it right, not getting it trashed. The either/or mentality that you get from people like Perry obscures the way in which regulatory agencies work -there are reasons why the Federal government imposes standards on businesses, I don't think you disagree with the idea companies large and small should not be allowed to whatever they want, so its about the finesse with which regulatory agencies operate.

Of course that is reasonable. HOWEVER, I think that what many of us want in large part is for the Federal Government to get out of initiatives that they are not constitutionally authorized to be in. This means abolishing many departments at the Federal level (such as the department of education) and privatizing social security, and elminating medicare and medicaid as Federal programs. It doesn't mean that regulations for education goes away or we stop treating the sick or the indigent. It simply means that the repsonsiblity is shifted to the States (where it is supposed to be). Let each State determine what its own needs are for education and medical care and tax accordingly. This way, I don't have to worry about my tax dollars going to States like California who a) can't pass a budget and b) amass huge amounts of debt because they cannot control spending.

[hard4janira]

Which is why Tea Party enthusiasts, RINO's or whatever you call them are deluded fools -the capitalist system in the USA continues to charge forward, but it no longer needs the tired, the poor and the hungry -they are what is left rotting on the street when the bus leaves town. There will be a recovery in the USA and the UK, but the volume of jobs will never return to what it was in the 1950s, it's as brutal as that. And nobody ever said capitalism was fair, but its the only game in town.

RINO stands for 'Republican in name only'. They are the career politicians (Republicans) who talk a big game but fail to live up to true conservative values when the rubber meets the road. It is the RINO's that the Tea Party has targeted and gone after (moreso than the Democrats which are mostly lost-causes anyways). In 2010, a lot of Republicans lost primaries to Tea Party candidates because they were not conservative enough (and by that I mean they are big-government / big-spenders). The Tea Party movement has really shook up the Republican Party more than anything else, moving the party back to the right and away from the RINO clowns that have been making all of these shady back-room deals with Democrats and running up our debt to unsustainable levels.

[BluegrassCat]

I honestly hope that the US goes bankrupt one day and is forced to live within its means. I would NEVER vote to raise the debt ceiing if I were a member of congress. What a bunch of evil liars and theives these politicans are, buying votes with borrowed and stolen money. Time is coming! Time is coming when you will pay dearly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this is why we will never agree. I just don't want to see the U.S. fail. I reject that premise that U.S. should fail to pay its bills and forfeit on its promises, watch its military falter and the majority of citizenry slide into poverty. I want to see the U.S. overcome its difficulties, get out of the recession, train a new generation of workers and grow the economy, not shrivel up and die. I will never get on board for rooting against my own country.

[Stavros]

hard4janira

The point is that the extremists who think they are shaking up 'the system' have been bought by it, co-opted, and are being quietly subverted -revolution in America? Left or right, its not going to happen. OWS and the Tea Party are not strong enough to make real change happen; but who knows what will happen in the next 12 months -and Harold Wison said a week is a long time in politics...

[canuseeme]

The government is going into debt because of Social Security and Medicare, programs designed specifically for the middle class and the elderly. How can anybody say that America has neglected the poor when 2/3 of our debt are social programs? What a complete absurdity. The fact is the people in the country are WEAK mentally. We have created and fostered a hand-out, welfare culture and now we are suffering the consequences. We have generations of people who expect things to be given to them and are encouraged to be angry and spiteful if they don't get them.

if you would have just placed medicare in this post you would be correct but since you included SS you lose credibility and sound like a fox news blowhard, 3 trillion of the current debt is from over collected SS payments since the early 1980s that are initragov loans, these intragov loans are bonds that cannot be sold on the open market and are basically worth nothing

[canuseeme]

look at that tea party go just like any other new corrupted politician

15 Tea Party Caucus freshmen rake in $3.5 million in first 9 months in Washington

On her website, Rep. Diane Black asks constituents to join advisory panels in her Tennessee district. "I believe the best ideas to solve our nation's problems will come from people like you," Black writes, "not Washington bureaucrats and special interest groups."

Black is one of the new Republicans who rode a wave of anti-Washington sentiment into town in 2011, a self-identified member of the tea party wing that has been cast as a new kind of conservative-- fiery, unwilling to compromise and determined to downsize the government. But while many say Black and her companions have created a split in the Republican Party, it is not visible among the companies and interest groups that are donating to members of Congress.

A joint analysis by iWatch News and the Center for Responsive Politics has found that the 15 freshmen members of the Tea Party Caucus have embraced many of the same special interests that have supported Republicans for years. The fifteen combined have received over $3,450,000 during the first three quarters of this year from almost 700 different PACs.

It's an impressive haul for a group of newly elected House members. But it shouldn't be surprising that these fresh faces found new friends in Washington.

"Business as usual," says Mary Boyle of good-government group Common Cause. "The lobbyists and other traditional Washington powers know that the newbies will learn fast that they need them, and their rolodexes."

It may well be, but some of the freshmen appear to have their eyes wide open.


Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., has received more than $252,000 from PACs, accounting for about two-thirds of the money he has raised this year. His chief of staff, Fred Piccolo, was unapologetic for the donations the congressman has received. "One person's 'special interest' is another person's 'personal interest,'" he said.

Among the biggest PAC donors to the tea party freshmen are familiar Washington faces, including Honeywell International, which led the way both in number of donations and overall money given. The top five corporate PACs that donated to these freshmen:

- Honeywell International, a Fortune 100 company best known for its defense manufacturing, made 52 donations worth at least $105,000
- The American Bankers Association, one of the major trade associations for the financial sector, made 31 donations worth at least $53,000
- Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest defense contractors in the country, with 30 donations for at least $28,000
- Koch Industries, the company run by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, made 29 donations worth at least $38,000
- The National Association of Realtors, a major trade group for real estate agents, with 29 donations worth $34,000

The fifteen members also took a significant amount of money from ideological groups, including at least $100,000 from the PAC of Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, at least $55,000 from the Boehner-affiliated Freedom Project, and at least $42,000 from the Republican Majority Committee PAC. Groups in this category were critical to the financial success of many of these candidates in 2010. Since their victories, however, these members are finding financial support for their campaigns from a much wider selection of interests in Washington.

Black, one of the richest members of Congress, seems to have quickly learned her way around town. She leads the way as the most successful fundraiser in the bunch, having raised at least $418,000 from PACs alone through the first three quarters.

Overall, this group of freshmen representatives has become just as reliant on PAC money as their counterparts who have been in the House longer. The median Tea Party Caucus freshman brought in roughly 44 percent of their money from PACs, 43 percent from large individual donors, and 4 percent from small donors who gave less than $200 each. Comparatively, the median House Republican got 46 percent from PACs, 45 percent from large individuals and 4 percent from small individual donors.

One freshman caucus member who stands out among his peers is Rep. Allen West, who represents Florida's 22nd district. Early on in the 2010 election West became a phenomenon, one who was able to raise massive amounts from small contributions around the country as if he were a national figure. And the influx of contributions has not slowed. While he has raised at least $210,000 from PACs through the first nine months of this year, the percentage of money he has received in from individual donations of $200 or less has actually increased since his election, something rarely seen among politicians.

The Bankers Association is another notable, given the full throated support of the financial system raised by some members of the Tea Party Caucus. Freshman Joe Walsh recently screamed at a constituent who asked about big banks' role in the financial collapse, "Don't blame the banks ... that*****es me off." In fact, over 17 percent of the money brought in by the Tea Party Caucus freshmen came from the financial institution, according to CRP numbers.

Ross, the Florida congressman, was somewhat surprised by how much fundraising a freshman member has to do, Chief of Staff Piccolo said. "It has definitely been more than anticipated, but in the end, many of these folks represent organizations with tens of thousands of employees and a direct impact on the district.... [Ross'] willingness to stand against feeding at the DC spending trough have endeared him to some and angered others."

"For every 'special interest' that writes a check, there are an equal number that would write one to an opponent."

"Newcomers quickly realize that if they want to stay in Congress, they must immediately begin raising lots of money" says Common Cause's Boyle. "So they go to the people and interests who are more than happy to give it - those who want something from Congress."

"Sadly, it's what you have to do to survive in this system, and that's why it must be changed, so that lawmakers don't take office owing favors to their biggest campaign donors. "

The Tea Party Caucus is an official house caucus founded by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., in 2010. Although many conservative Republicans have been identified as being tea party supporters, there are only 60 official members of the caucus. When asked if there was a freshman representative to the caucus, spokeswoman Becky Rogness said that the only official is Rep. Bachmann. And because the caucus is an official government entity, "it is not involved in political campaigning or fundraising."

In response to questions for this article, Honeywell spokesman Rob Ferris said "Honeywell's Political Action Committee supports those who support the policies that are most important to our company and are in the best interest of growing the American economy and creating American jobs." He declined to answer follow up questions, as did Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams after stating that "Lockheed Martin supports a wide range of political leaders based on their level of interest and commitment in national security, homeland security, and other issues of importance to the corporation including education and technology."

Sara Wiskerchen, a spokeswoman for the National Association of Realtors, said that "NAR is the most bipartisan PAC in the country" and bases it's giving on candidates with "have strong records of support for homeownership and private property rights." When asked if members of the Tea Party Caucus were more sympathetic to the concerns of the NAR, Wiskerchen said "No, support for homeownership issues we consider important varies across all political parties and depends strongly on the issue."

Request for comments were not returned from the American Bankers Association or Koch Industries. All 15 of the freshmen mentioned were contacted. Anyone not quoted here did not respond to a request for comment.

Aaron Mehta is a staff writer with the Center for Public Integrity. Bob Biersack is a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics.

See original source for breakdowns of how much each received.

[Faldur]

The point is that the extremists who think they are shaking up 'the system' have been bought by it, co-opted, and are being quietly subverted -revolution in America? Left or right, its not going to happen. [/I]

Couldn't disagree more, since the 2010 elections the Tea Party has been responsible for $1.2 trillion in budget cuts, about to take place in a forced cut. The Presidential primary is focused as much on the Tea Party vote as it is the country club republicans, maybe even more so.

After 2012 Tea Party membership in congress will grow, they are effectively forcing change in the "business as usual" in Washington. I don't ever see a group of .0001% such as the OWS ever even getting a representative elected.