Because they crashed our economy, Ruken.

I understand that, but personal accountability these days is hard to find. Maybe people should've looked at the mortgage documents to see what the rates could adjust to.

Maybe students should actually research their major before taking out 100K in loans to get a worthless degree.

Where is their accountability?

Hmmmmm What kind of job does a liberal arts deg qualify for? Or a degree in fine arts? I have a degree in Culinary arts, but I have Network certifications which is why I have a good paying job and not a job cooking in a chain restaurant. I realized while in school what the career levels would be to both and chose the one that offered me the best future and the longest career. Waiting for you job to come back may not be the best way to go, since many jobs may not be coming back. We have been trying to hire 20 first level design engineers and have only been able to find 3 who can do fill the requirements. We can find a lot of people who can take a CAD drawing and make something......but not people who develop and conceive the idea or document.I know people dislike this, but Indian/Asian and Slavic people have an edge because they recognized the need and trained for it.

I don't believe that people should be appearing on national TV as representatives or spokespersons for the movement unless they have been chose democratically

Other:

I agree 100%. The people in both movements who jump in front of the cameras claiming to represent the aggregates of their respective groups are self-appointed and actually end up doing more harm then good. While both movements have core tenets that many in the general population could possibly get behind, the media, whose agenda is clearly to maintain the status quo, only exposes us to the extremists within each group. They realize that it's difficult to support a movement represented by imbeciles.

SI

You're right, I suppose Americans should settle for flipping burgers and digging ditches so that they don't risk taking on debt. Ruken, education is how you turn a country from a third-wold cesspit to a developed and prosperous nation. Not getting an education is a far more dangerous risk for the country, so adding some stability to getting a degree is key in keeping the United States competitive.

I'm not saying don't get an education, I'm saying get a marketable education. Even in this economy, many college graduates in engineering and other fields have multiple offers as they leave school.

People just need to learn that the market for majors like "English" or "Greco-Roman Art History" just isn't there, and taking on debt to get that degree isn't worth it. They should research the marketability of their degree before taking on the loans.

Because quite frankly, having a bunch of people with worthless unnecessary degrees is worse than having no degree at all.

Are you suggesting that people who can not afford to study medicine, law or science find another major? We finance our students so that the best and brightest are our future doctors and scientists. Do you suggest only wealthy students should aspire to these levels? And poor students should just get welding or mechanics training?

The "best and brightest" usually get scholarships.

I think what he was saying is don't go to Clarkson if you can only afford SUNY Plattsburgh. State schools are just as good and less expensive.

There is a false argument being made by Ruken that you must have a marketable degree when you leave school. The primary purpose of a college degree is to teach people how to learn. A bright, educated "English" major can be taught to do and prosper in any job that requires critical thinking. One problem with today's educational system is that students are not well rounded. Ruken suggests a narrower education, which is contrary to a well-rounded, educated individual.

Unfortunately, many jobs these days require a lot more than a 'critical thinker', they require a lot of technical know how that simply cannot just be 'trained in'.

I didn't advocate a narrow education, I'm advocating educations in which the business market places merit.

My question to the OWS group: Why do some of you feel the taxpayers should pay off your student loans for you?

first off... show me any link that says this...

but... how about the notion that education should be FREE in a country that boost they are the 'best' country in the world... or do you think the country would benefit by increasing the number of uneducated people in it?

why does the Tea Party think fighting for an uneducated (remove the department of education) and sick population (fight any idea of providing a system with health care for all) is good for the nation?

i sometimes actually wonder what the result would be if they tested the Tea Party to find out their average IQ... i bet it is NOT above 100...

To the Tea Party: "Why is welfare for the rich justified, but welfare for the poor is not?"

As an addendum, "Why is privatize the profits and socialize the risks justifiable with taxpayer money when bailing out already filthy rich corporations and banks?"

first off... show me any link that says this...

It isn't their main message, but it was alluded to a couple months ago.

but... how about the notion that education should be FREE in a country that boost they are the 'best' country in the world.

Here's my problem with that: nothing is free. People want "free" healthcare and "free" college educations, but the money has to come from somewhere. You know where? The taxpayers.

47% of all federal income tax returns amounted to a zero or negative tax returns. This means those people paid no income taxes or actually got money from the treasury. So almost half of the country pays no federal income tax, and we want more free services?

Let's compromise: once everyone pays taxes, then we can do that.

I remember a time much like this when I graduated from college. They push students into courses that fulfill what the market wants as freshmen then 4 years later everything has changed and the jobs aren't there. I couldn't even get a job at a pet store. I finally got one in hospital housekeeping only because my boyfriends father worked there and the depatment head listened to me when I told him you can starve to death being overqualified too. I'm an independent and I see much of what each side says. I see where big business has used the feds to ignore state laws and caused people to lose their homes. I also see where the federal government has picked sides in the issue of religious freedom choosing one set of citizens over the other instead of remaining neutral as they should. I will be interested in this debate.

Peteroid01, saying that the Tea Party wants uneducated, sick people because they oppose the government running these industries is like saying the Democrats support election fraud because they oppose providing I.D. when a person votes. One thing I do know for sure: nothing the government has ever run has been successful, at least not lately. Just look at the postal service, for instance. The federal government requires that many businesses communicate by mail which means they guarantee a customer base and they still need billions in tax payer money just to almost break even.

Ruken- I'm with one 100% on this. Want a job? Get a skill you can sell.

What kind of a job does a liberal arts degree get? Well, probably a great one because thet person understands society and the accomplishments of people throughout history and has learned from that. I think that it is a higher level of intellect to go beyond learning formulas and rules as one does in basic studies such a math and programming; although I do respect that those studies are part of a well-rounded education. More than often, however, it is the person with a wide range of knowledge about society and the world who develops the character and ability to communicate and achieves the higher paying executive and management jobs.

Corporate welfare is worse than social welfare. My tax dollars should not be used to bail out the rich or the poor.

@Petroid01 The US Department of Education has been a complete failure. The US ranks near the bottom of the pack against the rest of the industrialized world. 



Ruken

People just need to learn that the market for majors like "English" or "Greco-Roman Art History" just isn't there, and taking on debt to get that degree isn't worth it. They should research the marketability of their degree before taking on the loans.

Because quite frankly, having a bunch of people with worthless unnecessary degrees is worse than having no degree at all.

The problem I have with your point of view is that you seem to be saying that the ONLY purpose of an education is to get a job.

What about the fact that education and knowledge are absolutely CRUCIAL to the functioning of a democracy? If you don’t think people should major in history because it’s hard to get a job with that degree then should NO ONE study history? I hope you realize how bad that would be. Many of the most troublesome issues facing our society today have come up repeatedly in the course of history. As they say, those that are ignorant of the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

The Tea Party supporters and those of us on the left have PROFOUNDLY different interpretations of what was going on at the time our nation was founded. There are deep disagreements between the right and the left about what kind of society our founding fathers intended. I doubt that there are 5 people in 100 that know enough history to even BEGIN to decide who is right.

What about science? I have a PhD. The grant money for my current postdoctoral position is running out soon and I’ve been looking for a job for a YEAR with no success. Am I just a big dummy for wanting to be a scientist instead of something “marketable”? Well, maybe so, but where is our technological society going to be without people that devote their lives to science?

You also seem to ignore the plain simple fact that people need to choose a profession that they are interested in. If you don’t enjoy what you do for a living you’re not going to be successful, no matter how smart you may be. I would NEVER be able to make it as a businessman – not because I’m not smart enough but because it doesn’t interest me. It’s a wonderful career path for many people, but it’s just not who I am. Every week I would live for Friday and dread Monday.

Instead of blaming educated people for choosing the “wrong” major we should be asking ourselves what we can do to MAKE an education marketable. When you have an advanced degree and can’t get a job something is WRONG with the system. Think about it in terms of the good old fashioned work ethic. As an occupy Wall Street supporter, I believe that hard work should bring rewards. If hard work DOESN’T bring rewards then what is the incentive to do it?

Telling people to work hard to better their lives rings awfully hollow to folks that have spent years working incredibly hard and are still struggling.

Ruken, The fact that I got money back does NOT mean I paid NO taxes. It means I paid MORE than I SHOULD have.

Ruken - clearly whatever you studied didn't prepare you to discuss education. Graduates with liberal arts degrees are the most sought after because they can handle many different types of jobs. They have ciritcal thinking and adapt well to different environments and they have proved they can learn a varied curriculum. That is why managers will hire them first unless looking for specifics - like engineering.

I'm not familar with the whole student loan argument (I realize I should know more, so let me preempt all of the "then you can't have an opinion" replies that are bound to pop up).

But just to put it in perspective: social security, medicare (20% or which is spent in the last two months or life), and military spending account for approximately 66% of govenrment spending. Do you know how much is spent on education? 2%. In an era when India, China, Brazil, etc. are competing (and winning) our jobs, don't you think that the focus of our spending is a bit skewed?

The time has come to make the right choices. Do we keep grandma on a respirator for the next 60 days or do we invest in the next generation that is going to propell us into the next 50 years? I realize none of these are pleasant decisions to make. And all of us are going to have to eat $#!t to get out of the bind we are in.

The rich should advocate for an increase of 3% to the marginal tax rate. The old should seek end of life counseling to and find ways to lessen the burden on our spiraling medial costs. The young should stop being dumb asses and educate themselves by whatever means possible (an increase in education spending from 2 to 4 percent would also be a good start). The military should find ways to do more with less (like the rest of us), stop all thoughless foreign interventions (ie, shut down Afganistan, that crap hole will never move out of the 6th century).

All of these things can start to be accomplished as soon as we get special interest money out of politics. Our representatives need to start representing us (what a concept) and not their corporate/union masters.

Since I refuse to use Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus, I hope someone will throw this question at all six of these people, just as I present it to all Newsvine posters, OWS participants and supporters, and Tea Party members. Oh, actually to ALL citizens of the USofA. Why have you not gotten involved in the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us to help petition for the passage of the two constitutional amendments posted at that website? This is the ONLY way that we will ever get true political reform.

-Who ate my soup

That's the funny thing about majoring and the current market. Getting a "skill you can sell" is moot if there is no demand for that particular skill. Sure, a student could go into nursing and there will be plenty of that, but you're not taking into consideration personal abilities and limits. My mother is a surgical tech, and she laments the fact that well sell these ideas that say " if you get a career in the medical field you're set", because she constantly has to deal with people who aren't qualified to deal with the stress of the job, or blood, or the quick thinking and reflexive responses required to perform surgeries. Thus you have plenty of kids who are "book smart" and can identify this or that organ in a body but crack under pressure when a hard-boiled doctor is snapping away commands for this or that instrument.

Then, you say that there isn't a market for people Fine arts degrees. Well tell me something, look around your house or office and tell me what you see. Every wall, every chair or carpet was designed by an artist. When people hear "fine arts major" they think of a waif, unwashed young adult in a studio drinking coffee and considering which color they should add to their next masterpiece. This is pretty much a fantasy. "Fine arts" in itself, can lead to jobs in: Interior Design, Advertisement, Architecture, and more.

The question we should be asking is how many jobs are there for graduating students? If for x amount of graduating students, 2x that amount of jobs are outsourced, why are we blaming the grads? They simply did what for the past few decades was demanded of them, only to find the jobs they were working for vanishing under the prospect of more labor for less money in regards to some corporation.

Ruken - clearly whatever you studied didn't prepare you to discuss education. Graduates with liberal arts degrees are the most sought after because they can handle many different types of jobs. They have ciritcal thinking and adapt well to different environments and they have proved they can learn a varied curriculum. That is why managers will hire them first unless looking for specifics - like engineering.

I answered that already. Many jobs require a set of technical know-how that doesn't come with a liberal arts degree.

nstead of blaming educated people for choosing the “wrong” major we should be asking ourselves what we can do to MAKE an education marketable. When you have an advanced degree and can’t get a job something is WRONG with the system.

It's called supply and demand. There are far more graduates in a certain field than there are jobs, and they wonder why they are out of work? This is a fundamental working of our economy, it isn't going to change.

Ruken, The fact that I got money back does NOT mean I paid NO taxes. It means I paid MORE than I SHOULD have.

A negative return is different than what you are describing. A negative return is when they get it all back plus more.

junicon- You make some very good points. Let me ask you this, if you are not going to school to get a job, why would you be upset about not being able to find one? Do you really think the government should step in and create some enriching job for every possible career path someone might choose? I would like a masters in collecting pez dispensers, does that guarantee me a nice job?

Junicon - I do know enough history and politics to know that the argument isn't left versus right. It is a line with total government at one end and no government at the other. (Which makes the alliance between communists and anarchists quite curious.) Our founders created a constitution with the specific intent of limiting a federal government's authority i.e., federalism. It was based upon the Judeo-Christian notion of individual value and liberty - not collectivism. But it has systematically usurped authority - a trend which began to accelerate in the early 1900s during the Progressive Era. I could go on, but I don't think anyone wants to read a book here.

@Who Ate My Soup

Ruken- I'm with one 100% on this. Want a job? Get a skill you can sell.

I thought I did. I went to school and got a joint degree in Pharmacology and Toxicology to pursue a career in the pharmaceutical industry. I thought, "People will always need medicine. I'll try and develop some." So here I am, a research scientist looking to develop new antibiotics for drug resistant infections.

Unfortunately, most Big Pharma companies are closing their labs and sending them overseas to places like India and China to do the research. See, companies stateside are no longer allowed to dump all of our toxic byproducts (like we used to years ago) into the ground or waterways like they can in these unregulated countries. Not having to properly dispose of such waste saves a bundle. Most Americans tend to think it's kind of unethical to poison the population in search of profits. Communists? Not so much. Plus, y'know, they underpay them, work them harder for longer hours and provide very few if any benefits (y'know, all the sort of stuff that helped make the Middle Class and create the one of the best standards of living in the world) which is the level, I suppose, some people on this board think Americans should sink to stay globally competitive.

I am not one of them. However, many CEOs seem to be in that category, so off the jobs go, even for one-time reliable technically skilled jobs like scientists, to shrink fixed costs and expand the bottom line. That results in a larger pool of scientists fighting for a smaller pool of positions. As such, your overly simplistic, black and white approach holds very little water. How can our ever-expanding unemployed workforce overcome the ever increasing shortage of jobs?

Those 'liberal arts' degrees seem to confuse conservatives. Web design, packaging, advertising - are all art based activities. Equipment and software manuals, corporate newsletters, annual reports and prospecticus - are produced by english majors. The glossy images in those reports - in advertsing - in corporate communication are produced by photographers. A lot of complex castings are produced by lost wax casting - can't be done by CAD/CAM - the wax positives are sculpted by sculptors. Animation is done by people trained in liberal arts programs. Libraries maintain corporate archives and libraries. Landscapers, architects, interior designers create the corporate look and feel of a corporate environment - even if you just order it online - a designer created the shape and appeal of the product.

Liberal arts are used in a wide variety of business activities - and - some businesses could not exist without people that have art training. We do not live in a world of clunky boxes designed by nerdy engineers. Liberal arts are used everywhere ...

Art employs its own language and its own culture. Just because YOU do not understand it - just because YOU have such a narrow understanding of how business operates - just because YOU have the aesthetic appeal of a vinyl pocket protector - does not mean that the arts have no value.

I really only have one multi-layered question directed towards both groups.

Just WHAT do you want your government TO do? And HOW should the government you want pay for that?

(And please, explain it in tangible, actionable items. Not rhetoric or ideological nonsense.)

Jazz- you have to get a degree that is in demand. You have to develop a skill you can do. Sitting there complaining that you aren't very good at something won't take you very far.

I think what Ruken means is, students should get degrees that will match their financial objectives. Whether that means a liberal arts degree or an engineering degree is up to the student.

Too often, what seems to happen is students take out large loans to get degrees that have very little chance at the high salaries needed to pay off those loans.

I realize some here think liberal arts is a good degree from a financial perspective...I haven't researched this in many years, but if the research backs up that assertion - then go for it. However, if the research doesn't back it, then don't take out the loans to get the degree.

I'll also add that you shouldn't get loans unless you absolutely have to. I went in the military for a few years to get college money, then I worked 30+ hours/week while getting my degree, and stayed in reasonably priced apartments - so I graduated with zero debt. Too often I see people taking out college loans to buy a car, live in a nice apartment, or party/eat out.

Demands change, Soup. Not too long ago, I'd say a span of 5 years back, journalism and mass communications were considered "in demand". Now that students who were studying those fields are graduated, they are no longer in demand.

It's not as simple as saying "get a degree that is in demand", you're not seeing the big picture. Degrees take time, and the market shifts within a span of a year. If I were to say, change my major to fit every demand as it came and went from the time of starting school to the time of graduating, I would have gone through at least three majors right now.

Warhammer- you thought wrong, that's not my fault. Maybe you should focus your efforts toward finding a career that isn't being shipped to India. Once again a degree you can't use is worthless.

"I think that it is a higher level of intellect to go beyond learning formulas and rules as one does in basic studies such a math and programming..."

srm1, this just goes to show how little you know about "programming" or anything relating to computer science. There is not a specific of algorithms defined that you need to learn and suddenly you're a "great programmer." You develop these algorithms and formulas yourself through critical thinking and problem solving. Oh, and one more thing... pretty much none of us in the IT/computer science fields are having a problem finding jobs right now. In fact, I was able to leave my former employer and take a better paying job at another company at the height of the recession. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Liberal Arts degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Peter

Here you go. In this link the OWS is planning on a mass default. Refusing to pay their Studet Loans.

The Debtors’ Pledge of Refusal is a cooperative action, undertaken in the belief that debt distorts our educational priorities and severely limits our life options. We believe this Pledge can and will lead to sweeping reforms in the funding of higher education. Click below to read and sign the full Pledge.

http://www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org/

You can watch their OWN Video and hear their words for yourself.

Liberal arts are used in a wide variety of business activities - and - some businesses could not exist without people that have art training. We do not live in a world of clunky boxes designed by nerdy engineers. Liberal arts are used everywhere .

I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. I mean that the number of graduates some degree programs far outweighs the demand for people with their skills, hence their low pay and/or difficulty finding employment. For some this is a passing thing, for others it's a chronic problem that isn't going away.

Peter

Here you go. In this link the OWS is planning on a mass default. Refusing to pay their Studet Loans.

The Debtors' Pledge of Refusal is a cooperative action, undertaken in the belief that debt distorts our educational priorities and severely limits our life options. We believe this Pledge can and will lead to sweeping reforms in the funding of higher education. Click below to read and sign the full Pledge.

http://www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org/

You can watch their OWN Video and hear their words for yourself.

Wow...just wow.

Remember what I said earlier about people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions?

Oh, and FYI. I have a large amount of student loan debt, so it's not like I'm out of touch with their plight. I'm just working to pay it off in full.

Hey Junicon:

I have a degree in history and political science. I also have a job that has nothing to do with my degrees. BUT, because I have a degree it makes me more valuable to potential employers. I read somewhere that the unemployment rate for those that are 25 years or older with college degrees is only 4.5%.

"Give it a rest!

The "best and brightest" usually get scholarships."

I have a 3.96 GPA through 3 years and I still have not seen my first $ from a scholarship.

My question for OWS:

What do people mean when they say "Fair Share"? How can you determine when someone is paying a fair or unfair share?

To the Tea Party: "Why is welfare for the rich justified, but welfare for the poor is not?"

-----------------------

Really? You think there is nobody in the US getting 'assistance' but the rich?

Who ate my soup

Maybe you should focus your efforts toward finding a career that isn't being shipped to India.

I find that statement to be overly simplified as well. As technology advances, more and more technical careers that need advanced education will be going away to where fixed costs like labor are cheaper and standards of living are lower. If it can be done on a computer, it'll be gone. If it can be done over the phone, it will be gone. If it can be done elsewhere and emailed or shipped back, it'll be gone.

That will leave us with a very small variety of jobs from which to choose. Do you really think everybody in the country should focus on being a tradesman (like a mechanic or carpenter) or working in the service industry (in retail like Walmart or food services like McDonalds) or working for the government (like public school teachers or politicians)? And when everybody is reduced to focusing their skill on such a limited number of job markets, do you really think there will be enough jobs to employ all those folks? And when most of these folks can't find work, because there's simply not enough positions to fill them all, who will patronize all the folks who are employed?

Snapping back with a soundbyte is all well and good, but your argument lacks depth.

I think a major point that a lot of you are forgetting is that a vast majority of these people decided to take on their college debt and pursue various degrees BEFORE the economy collapsed. If these so called market experts weren't able to foresee this situation, how were we supposed to expect high school kids to see it? Yeah, getting an Art History degree or a Russian Literature degree probably won't get you a job, but there are plenty of other degrees that now won't get you a job when 5 years ago (when all these people first took on their debt and started pursuing their degree) they would have.

It's similar to the argument that the homeowners that lost their houses were arguing; how could they have honestly known the risks they were taking with their debt if the experts didn't know about it? Except for homeowners, you still have the opportunity to make more money. Without the right degree, you're in debt AND you can't get a job to pay for the debt

As far as paying for college goes, one could argue that since so many people do get college degree and that they are so expensive, it sets up a system where people too poor to pay for college all stay poor, thereby increasing the difficulty of moving out of the lower class. That being said, bring equality to 1 level doesn't get rid of inequality, it only raises it up the notch. It used to the that an elementary education was good enough. High school was something extra to help distinguish people. Then it shifted to a high school education, and a college degree was something extra. Now college degrees are required.

The decision is not about money. It's really not. While we don't have the money to do it right now, this decision would obviously be made when we have some money. And by doing simple math, it shows that the government would take in far more money in taxes from a college graduate than they would have paid for the degree.

It's a moral issue, about what we (the tax payers) should provide for people vs what is required to provide an equal opportunity to everyone. And I think that while the economy is in the toilet, the decision is clear. But I do think that once we get the economy back on track, we should revisit it

I think folks are getting off-target regarding "marketable college majors" with regard to the unreasonable costs associated with higher education these days. NO one, regardless of degree type should have to go into debt for years in order to obtain a college education. Student loans are just another "marketable" way for banks to make a profit off of the underclass of society. The American public should expect public education to be within the realm of affordability for middle and working class families, and unfortunately that hasn't been the case for a long time, as we've moved further away from economic democracy and into liberal "free-market" education at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Hopefully, part of what the Occupy Movement will pull for is not just reform of currrent student loan packages, but much more importantly, REDUCTIONS in public university tuition rates to what they were a generation ago. This is no pipe dream, as the only thing that prevents it is political power in the hands of those who are out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans. Both Occupy AND the Tea Party should be involved in making higher education accessible for all.

By the way, Soup, what's your career?

See, when I went to school, pharmaceuticals was a huge industry. Huge! And I got hired by Merck right outta school back in 1999 where I am still gainfully employed today. But the industry is collapsing, succumbing to the pressure from Wall Street to maintain unrealistic growth quarter afte quarter. I'm pretty sure, sooner rather than later, no matter how much I've been expanding my skill sets to include chemistry, genetics, and surgery skills, I will lose out to cheaper global labor.

Since it seems that you are quite comfortable in your career and sound as if you don't have the worries a lot of us other folks here on the board do, I'd like to know what is your profession. Since you make is sound pretty stable and in demand, perhaps I could go back to school and retrain myself while I still have income to do so. Can ya help a brother out with some career insight?

2Cents

Usually people get academic scholarships based on their high school grades, SAT scores and ACT scores. Maybe things have changed since the 1990's.

@JM1992894

"The time has come to make the right choices. Do we keep grandma on a respirator for the next 60 days or do we invest in the next generation that is going to propell us into the next 50 years? I realize none of these are pleasant decisions to make. And all of us are going to have to eat $#!t to get out of the bind we are in."
So you're saying that people who work all their lifes should just go die and make room for the pampered youth such as yourself? Maybe we should just euthanize everyone on their 30th birthday then... that would keep everyone young and in their prime and do away with any care for the elderly. And perhaps we should destroy all newborns that don't meet certain genetic standards of perfection too, thereby eliminating expenses for helping them achieve their potential. And sterilize all the handicapped, or better yet just gas them. And if you get sick...well it costs to much so live or die on your own, without help, medical care or anything else that 'might cost' everyone to cover. And while we're at it maybe we should lobotomize and sterilize pampered unthinking brats such as yourself. I've worked over 40 years with the promise of SS and Medicare for my old age, far more than you've done and now when it's time for society to keep it's promises to me and others like me YOU want us to just "die off and reduce the excess population" How 19th Century Victorian and Scrooge-ish can you get? Did you actually think this up or did someone fill your empty unthinking head with that garbage? Without the elderly you wouldn't even exist, and without their efforts and hard work you wouldn't have even this blog to post your ignorant tripe rants on. Do us all a favor and when you get old, frail and sick remember your own words. Refuse SS, refuse Medicare/Medicaid, Refuse healthcare, and get counselling for euthanising yourself.

Which is where I was going with my post Ruken. It was just worded incorrectly. Sometime the responders act like mini dobie pinchers around here..... I do realize liberal arts degrees do have meaning, its just that degrees that target high paying skill jobs can give you a head start at beginning to pay off your student loans.

Peteroid01, saying that the Tea Party wants uneducated, sick people because they oppose the government running these industries is like saying the Democrats support election fraud because they oppose providing I.D. when a person votes. One thing I do know for sure: nothing the government has ever run has been successful, at least not lately. Just look at the postal service, for instance. The federal government requires that many businesses communicate by mail which means they guarantee a customer base and they still need billions in tax payer money just to almost break even.

I copied this from a post by JimP1969. You made a statement about the post office not being run right by the government. That statement is only true if you don't like at the reason for the post office troubles maybe you should look into the real reason.

That is the congress has mandated the post office pay for future employees health care, seventy five years in advance. Costing the post office hundred billions' of dollars out of the present general operating budget of the post office, there by eating all of the profits the post office make each year. Putting the budget in the red all of the time each year. This mandate creates a false impression that the post office is not run right.

I suspect this is done to give the impression that the post office should be privatized. When in fact the post office would at least be self supporting if congress had not made this mandate. Because of this, the post office is always raising rates just to trying stay afloat. The tax payer would not have to support the post office if congress had left well enough alone. By the way I don 't work for the post office, and never have. I just don't like to see false info influencing the reader

ive it a rest,

That is a classic response from a RP supporter. You can argue about the DOE as much as you want but quoting stastics that compare us to the rest of the world is disingenuous bordering on downright lies. In most other countries in the world if you are not doing well prior to high school (or their equivalent) you are immediately removed and shipped into a school where you learn a trade. That means that the HS test scores that they use to compare countries are skewed for the US versus other countries. We do not have slotting in America (if you ask most people) and therefore we don't exclude anyone from taking tests related to their high school aptitude.

I picked accounting because I'm good at it and I knew I could make money at it. But most people can't do accounting. I know because i've seen folks try to discuss it. I don't want them trying because they'll just cause issues without having certain skillsets. You should do what you're good at and you should be able to expect that the largest corporations who drive our economy will not sink it such that your job and skillset is not needed because of a recession.

Why didn't they pick the Teaparty folks who had signs like "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" ?

Tea Partiers, how can you justify the promoting of lawmakers and policies that continue to make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Never in the history of the US has there been such a giant gap between the haves and have nots.

BTW, an "occupier" is not the opposite of a "tea partier". They I agree with the large swath of many reasons the occupiers joined for, I feel their lack of ability to clarify their stances just makes them a mob and not a movement.

Occupiers, do you plan to vote with your feet and not your mouths? THe voting booths are not in parks and picketing areas. They're usually in public facilities and schools, so go vote and let your voice be heard loud and clear that way. It's much more effective, no matter how much the right-wing tries to change the results through election fraud.

Finally, Tea Partiers, how can you recognize yourselves as part of that party or movement, and yet stand to gain very little from it? You're pawns, workers, slaves to the elite masters that need your votes, but pay you back nothing for them. Soon you'll be without SS and Medicare benefits. The govt programs you rely upon will soon be eliminated by your own votes.

As a supporter of the Occupy movement, I don't believe that people should be appearing on national TV as representatives or spokespersons for the movement unless they have been chose democratically by their particular Occupies as representatives or spokespersons. It isn't the place of the media to decide who speaks for an about the movement, it is the place of the movement.

This is particularly the case on an issue as important and controversial as the Occupy movement's attitudes and relationship to the Tea Party. Those speaking for the movement should be chosen by the entire movement or at the very least their Occupies.

This underscores one of the differences between the movements. The leaders of the Tea Party were self appointed or glommed on the movement once it got rolling. To my knowledge, there wasn't any vote.

Sir, please go back and read the descriptions - the TEA party representatives formed local groups, ergo they ARE the representatives. As for the Occupy movement, MSNBC reports that efforts to organize, form a platform and some kind of representative structure have been stymied by many members of the Occupy movement, who want to leave it "Open" for individuals to pursue whatever issues they feel are important. Which of course means ANYONE can technically represent OWS, even you - so what are you complaining about?

College costs have gone through the roof in the last 10 yrs parents used to take out home equity loans to pay for their kid education that is not much of an option in today housing market. Now more than ever student loans are the only way to pay and costs since the recession have and continue to rise faster and larger than ever before. On top of that the job market even for college graduates is not good and the amount of debt that some are forced to take on is just too much to handle. My daughter is a teacher 3rd yr on the job. We were able to get her through undergraduate school without student loans, but by the time for her credential program we were out of savings plus equity from downsizing our home and she had to get a $25,000 student loan. She now has a teaching job paying $44,000 a yr out of that she has rent of $1,500 a month (yes she lives in a high rent area) and now she wants to get a admin credential which to cost another $11,000. I believe she will be many years paying off the debt and forget about buying a house for a very long time. Many recent college graduates are in much worst financial shape and at the rate that college cost are now rising it is only going to get worst.. In the 1960s and most of the 70's state colleges were tuition free Gov Reagan put in the first tuition fees when he was gov small at first but like everything else the fees have continued to rise and now are some of the highest in the nation. California was a model for community college at one time, the state was way ahead of the rest of the country. Now even it community colleges have some of the highest fees for jr college in the country.

Since I have no more kids to get through college you could say I no longer have a dog in this fight, but I do care and believe it is mandatory that we as a country need to fund education if we expect to lead the world in the 21st century. I hear the right in this country yell about socialism and not wanting gov to support anything well free or low cost secondary education is the biggest thing that we can do to keep this country from becoming second rate. If we are going to saddle future generations with debt than at least give them the education that other country buying our debt are giving their kids. Maybe if we skip a few wars we could save enough to pay for education and reduce the national debt. If fighting and policing the world is more important than our childrens future we are too stupid to matter. War in the future is all about economics and education is the only way to even be on that fight card.

Warhammer- I work in advanced aerospace as a manufacturing engineer developing instrumentation and test equipment. When the economy started looking shaky back in the late 90's I shifted my focus toward a CADCAM specialty. As computers and software took over the manufacturing world I rode the wave and stayed on top. Now I make a fair chunk of change, and I can quit my job right now and have a new job by dinner. Is this where I intended to be at this point in my career, nope. But when I went to college this hardly existed. Now it is the future. I've learned to be flexible, take my lumps and keep fighting. My dreams haven't been crushed, they just transformed. I like what I do, what more can a man ask for? Don't think I have no sympathy for the people out there fighting for crappy jobs, my first real job was digging ditches (no joke or pun). I just hate to see people act like they don't have a choice because the job market sucks. I have a 19 year old at home who wants to go to school for music and it drives me nuts. I keep telling him his first priority has to be a day job, then follow your heart at night. Is that good advice? I'll tell you about ten more years when I know. Point being nobody can see the future, you just have to be prepared to deal with it.

Ruken

I understand that, but personal accountability these days is hard to find.

Why can't the Republican Party take responsibility and pay for their own health insurance? Instead you want to repeal "Obamacare" and so far I haven't heard what you want to replace it with. You want to go back to the way it was? Where the poor and self employed went to the ER for a cold and I paid for it? What's "responsible" about that?

Why can't those earning a million dollars and over annually take responsibility and pay the FULL percentage of their income bracket instead of just half of it? When are they going to quit whining?

Look at the difference of age between the panelists. You think there's any chance they are going to see eye to eye? Set up to fail from the start.

Trevor-1973

To the Tea Party: "Why is welfare for the rich justified, but welfare for the poor is not?"

-----------------------

Really? You think there is nobody in the US getting 'assistance' but the rich?

I think the point of the comment was that republicans and the teanuts seem to only complain about helping the poor. Whatever help that is given to the rich in whatever form that it may come seems to be ok; but to feed someone who is hungry is absolutely and unequivocally bad!!

Are there regular citizens that game the system for gain when they could be working or at least not being lazy?? Of course there are; but that is the only scenario that the right seems to care about. There is not a republican or teabagger that will not try to be first in line to pick up their check from the government. Remember that "Keep your government hands off my medicare" shouted at one of the tea party rallies.

I'm pretty liberal about things, and I am certainly open to changing the system to not make using the system a career, however I will not support screwing the average joe over when people on the right and especially big business games the system for their self interests as well. Either stop all of it, or get over it.

Thanks for your opinion TheOtherDrG, but fortunately, you don't get to decide what the press can or can't do, thanks to our right of freedom of the press. I prefer leaving it to them rather than fascist, governmental butt kissers who think they know what's best for me and mine.

@Who Ate My Soup

I work in advanced aerospace as a manufacturing engineer developing instrumentation and test equipment. When the economy started looking shaky back in the late 90's I shifted my focus toward a CADCAM specialty.

Well, consider yourself lucky that your industry is still healthy. Like I said, I've always kept adding to my skill set. Heck, one of the reasons I went for a Pharm/Tox degree was to be flexible, so I could go to any drug company or biotech and say, "I can do this, this, this, this, this, that, this other thing, this , this, yeah, that too, this this and this." Unfortunately, the WHOLE industry is contracting. And someday, yours might too. Seriously, if Wall Street puts pressure on the big companies in your field, they'll find an equally skilled aerospace engineer halfway around the world who will work twice as long for an eighth of your pay. Then you'll have bunches of your peers all picking up the latest trends and technology to stay competitive and then you'll have a glut of overqualified engineers all scrambled for jobs from a dwindling pool. It'll just take on of your competitors (or, God forbid, one lawsuit) to get the ball rolling and then the whole thing will come crumbling down.

Seriously, the pharmaceutical industry was indestructible when I was in college. I had so many job offers outta school it was ridiculous. I joined up with the Gold Standard of Big Pharma. Heck, our specific group discovered the first new class of antibiotic in over 40 years and I got co-authorship on a Nature paper out of it. Then the blockbusters started to come off patent and the the industry couldn't maintain profit margins Wall Street was used to, even though the industry was still wildly profitable. Then stuff like Vioxx happened. Now I look for work and most of the jobs out there are 6 to 12 month contract jobs. Like I stated previously, I'm still gainfully employed. I'm not gonna leave for a temp position. The experience and skills I've acquired over the years have obviously improved my value, and my company obviously thinks I'm worth keeping around... for now. Until I get too expensive to keep around. I'm lucky. And for right now, I think you are too. But don't think for one instant that's what happening in my line of work won't happen to you.

Don't think I have no sympathy for the people out there fighting for crappy jobs, my first real job was digging ditches (no joke or pun).

Yeah, I've been there, done that. I worked on an assembly line in a glass and neon sign factory during my summers throughout college. I couldn't leave that line for any reason until we got our two 15 minute breaks or our 30 minute lunch. And if the 15 minute breaks and lunch weren't mandatory by law, that place would have never allowed us leave the line. They would've put a bucket under the conveyor belt. :)

@Who ate my soup

And after reading what you do, there is NO WAY I could go back and learn that stuff. When I was in high school I actually contemplating studying engineering. It was that or pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, I stink at math. I need some for the science that I do, but it's nowhere near what is necessary for engineering. I knew my strengths (biology, chemistry, anatomy and physiology) and my weaknesses (physics, calculus, geometry) and chose my higher education accordingly. Truth be told, I, like your son, want to be an artist - a comic book artist to be precise. I've actually taken some weekend classes at the Joe Kubert School for Graphic Art & Design. Personally fulfilling, financially not so much. So I can relate to both you and your kid.

Anywho, I hope tragedy doesn't befall your field like it did mine, otherwise you'll be sweating it out every 12 months with each new re-org wondering if you'll have to settle for that 6 month contract position.

Basedrum777

Comparing our country to other countries is an apples-to-apples comparison. As a whole our population can't keep up in math, science or reading. If other countries push their more intelligent children in one direction and the less intelligent children in another maybe they are on to something. At least they recognize that people are born with different levels of intelligence.

The Tea Party and Occupy protesters alike are affected by the problems brought on by the funding of our elections by multinational corporations and banks.

The money these huge institutions give to American candidates who run office, corrupts our government at all levels and in both parties by putting the corporations and banks in charge of the regulatory process that were meant to protect the American public, instead of the banks and corporations.

We (the American people as Republicans, Democrats and independents) need to promote a constitutional amendment banning all non governmental financing of elections.

That should be something the overwhelming majority of Americans can agree on.

This can't be done without the public coming together, put our other differences aside. The effort can't be led by politicians because their political opponents would then be funded by the corporations.

OWS and the Tea party started partly as a reaction to the corruption the current corporate election system has wrought . The reason the Banks not only were bailed out, but the reason they needed to be bailed out was because the banks have been able to rewrite the rules they do business under.

The reason we can spend trillions on wars, but only millions on cancer research, or education, or infrastructure or anything that would benefit those of us here at home, is because military contractors and oil companies (who don't want to spend their own money on security in risky nations) spend taxpayer money on electing people who will keep certain conflicts going that stand to improve their bottom lines.

Conservatives, liberals, and moderates are all being screwed by this problem.

My question to the OWS group: Why do some of you feel the taxpayers should pay off your student loans for you?

I don't know. Because maybe their big bucks unies have robbed students as much as the gov has robbed tax payers.

Personally, I think all education should be free in a truly civilized country.

I have a question for the TPs. Why do you think I should pay for your religion? And I'm already doing that without anything new. Get your religion out of my tax dollars. This is not a fight you want to undertake because if the millions of secular orgs decide they've had enough of subsidizing the church the church is going to be in big trouble.

Ruken while you have a point about the taxes thing please note that probably a percentage of those returns in which money was given to the tax payer is due to paying too much into the system. For example I choose the 23% tax bracket when filling out the forms after getting a job (in AZ we can choose between 15% 19% and 23% tax backets for withholding). This means that come tax time I will always get a return because I have paid more into the system then I need to.

Warhammer- good luck out there,,,, we all need some luck from time to time.

If the "Occupy" movement is in fact who It portrays Itself to be, and since we all know who and what the "Tea Party" is, my question would be; why the hell should the two meet? The dining table is no place for both a pot of soup and the bed chamber pot containing the nights fill.

@JOLLYOLDSOUL1 -- You posting states: "We have been trying to hire 20 first level design engineers and have only been able to find 3 who can do fill the requirements. We can find a lot of people who can take a CAD drawing and make something......but not people who develop and conceive the idea or document.I know people dislike this, but Indian/Asian and Slavic people have an edge because they recognized the need and trained for it."

If there is a dearth of first level design engineers, why not take the brightest struggling second level design engineers, hire them part-time and send them to school part-time to take advanced training classes to train for the more advanced development that your firm requires instead of hiring Indian/Asian and Slavic people.

Tuition had risen exponentially and far beyond inflation. In my 4 years of college tuition increased 40%. OWS asks that tuition costs be reasonable and that colleges be held accountable for spending it.

What it really boils down to is millions of students have been failed by the for-profit business of higher education, which does very few any good when there are no jobs out there in many fields, for others there are jobs but they don't pay enough to service the loans, and for others it is a matter of pursuing a high paying job that ends up paying far less when student loans get taken out for 10-20 years of their working career.

Job fields change constantly - a degree that is not used is worthless in 5 years, and many students are trying to hit a moving target. Millions have put in tons of time and money for years to specialize in 'the hot field' only to find it saturated and contracting when they finally graduate.

This is a failure of our entire model of higher education, and a lot of you need to realize there is more than just a $ value that goes along with education. The entire economic system needs a reboot and that goes beyond education, it includes everything near and dear to the middle class that has been systematically stripped away for 30+ years. We have two choices, we can either recognize these vital areas and make the necessary changes, or we can continue to fall down the global ladder and watch dozens of countries pass us up on every measurable performance area, from happiness to health to education to quality of life.

At least they recognize that people are born with different levels of intelligence.

(raw) Intelligence is only a small piece of the puzzle, there is also wealth and drive, something that exist with and without intelligence. The other countries are doing just as good as we are, and in many ways apparently better than our capitalism based presumption that MONEY = Intelligence and anybody who can't afford $100,000 for a degree should just wash dishes or flip hamburgers for life. We used to be the country the entire world turned to for a better chance, and a huge part of that was because here someone had the ability to start from scratch and get a strong education coupled with strong career opportunities. That time is no longer, and it makes no sense to villify and denigrate the few OWS who are willing to speak up about it.

Star Wizard

I expoused none of the nonesense you wrote above. BTW, thank you for basically calling me a spring chicken: I will be 50 next year.

But to answer your rant: what I was saying is that medical care of the elderly accounts for roughly 20% of the annual budget. Of that, 20% is spent in the last 2 months of life. Therefore 4% of the entire United States annual budget is spent on someone will soon pass. Given a budget of $1.1 Trillion (2012 budget), that means that we are spending $44.5 million this year in end of life care.

In 1970 national health expenditures were ~5% of GDP. In 2012, that will be roughly 17.5%. By the year 2080 (if we make it that far), at current growth levels, NHE will consume 45% of GDP.

Emotion tells us that no matter how unwise, providing medical care to the terminally ill is a necessary expenditure. Economics tells you that you are pissing money down the drain.

I hope to god (sorry I'm an atheist), that I'm lucid enough to know when to call it quits and to have the power and physical wherewithal to pull my own plug on my own terms.

People talk about a death panel. Crass as that may sound, that is basically what this would end up being. There really is no way to sugarcoat it. Albeit in a humane way, we need to deny medical care for the terminally ill. And by the way, I would posit that many in that situation would chose to refuse it if the pious would allow it. We don't need any more Terri Schiavos (sp?).

Emotion tells us that no matter how unwise, providing medical care to the terminally ill is a necessary expenditure. Economics tells you that you are pissing money down the drain.

Seeing it and stopping it are two different animals when the right wing makes it illegal to do anything different.

The tea party has its financial engine. That would be the Koch Brothers who have been involved from the beginning. Why any occupier would want to even have dialogue with these people is beyond me. The tea party is losing membership and have reached out to occupiers because they are desperate in the 2012 elections. My advice to occupiers is to say "h3ll no". The tea party believes in low taxes for the rich (trickle down economics) which means letting the rich keep even more money than they now possess. I don't know any occupier who believes the rich should be richer.

Given a budget of $1.1 Trillion (2012 budget), that means that we are spending $44.5 million this year in end of life care.

Correction: I meant $44.5 Billion. Carried the wrong decimal :).

JM-1992894, It's business as usual. If 44.5 billion being spent then somebody is making profit from this. They along with religious organizations will pour money in the lobby system using politics to keep Euthanasia from ever becoming lawful. It cuts into their profits. Also, I'm an Atheist too. I do believe, if possible, it should be the choice of the one who is sick whether to end life early.

My questions for the OWS folks are these:

1. Why blame banks for student loans, when it is Universities who demand outrageous prices for sometimes worthless degrees?

2. Why are leading universities sitting on billions, doing nothing with this wealth except paying their employees more and more, all the while increasing the cost of education at a rate that far outstrips inflation?

3. Why is there no acknowledgement that government making student loans not dischargeable in bankruptcy cause the cost of education to rise? (this cause is because a student loan is infinitely more valuable to the loan provider, as this asset will have a huge lifetime value, what with such a large percentage of student loans going delinquent, generating huge long term results)

4. Why is the OWS movement so hell bent on blaming just Wall St / Corporate interests, when it is government that empowers them and it is politicians who are enriched by their activities empowering Wall St?

5. Why is it that the current administration employing more Goldman Sachs former employees not a HUGE problem for OWS? This administration continues to surround itself with Big Banking and Wall St execs - including the Jobs Czar, whose company, GE, is actively sending jobs overseas, building new factories in China - the epitome of what OWS folks claim is one of their core issues.

It is sad to me that big government liberals are hyper supportive of OWS, when it is big government that is at the heart of every single OWS issue.

I have a question for both the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement: What is wrong with you people? Seriously, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? Members of both groups like the blame the left or blame the right. Blame liberals or blame conservatives. Blame Democrats and blame Republicans. And you know what, at the end of the day, nothing gets done. What is up with this all or nothing mentality. "Oh, I gotta get everything I (I!) want, at the expense of my fellow Americans." Where is the compromise? Where is the middle ground? For God's sake, where has the sanity gone?!

I find it 'interesting' that not one person has even attempted to address the issue brought up by jazz, lonereb and Junicon: They point out clearly that even if one does major in a field that market forces dictate is an 'in-demand' area of expertise, things change so quickly that even those jobs are shipped overseas or shrunk by the failing economy... How many unemployed computer specialists and medical experts are there out there right now? Those WERE the jobs that research said would be in demand. Now they've dried up. It's hard to believe that this system can get the white mouse on the wheel to defend its own imprisonment, even when there's no cheese involved. And that's on top of the fact that "Market Forces" aren't exactly doing a bang-up job of guiding this country in the right direction. Currently, Market Forces dictate you should learn to run a porno site or become a Wall Street robber baron. Those are currently high-paying, in-demand jobs. No thanks. I'd rather be poor than sell my integrity or become a thief. There's more to life than money. I think some hippy who died 2012 years ago had a similar message.

My question is for the Tea Party

What makes you are more dedicated, to the people of United States, then anyone else? I worked as a nurse for over forty years, I lost my 403b savings because of Wall Street deregulation. My home is worth less now, than when I purchased it because, of deregulation and prices have soared for the basic necessities. I paid taxes, I was a widow at a young age, so I did it alone. And yet, I personally saved lives. I held babies, In my arms, as they took their last breaths. I provided comfort for their loved ones. I have smelled odors, felt pain, listened to the sobs of the bereft. I provided comfort for those who had pain and were suffering. I paid my dues, just as much as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich. I have ALWAYS had to work, from the time I was nine and cleaned houses and earned every penny. My family was poor and my dad worked on the railroad, twelve hours a day, seven days a week. I know what it iws to be hungry and my family NEVER took welfare.

So again, I ask the Tea Party members, "What makes you anymore dedicated, to the people of United States than anyone else?" Maybe I can answer my own question. Because people like me, want every one to have a decent quality of life. Firefighters, police, and a lot of other human being, just doing their jobs and the Tea Party acts as we are free loaders, wwhen in real life, we are the backbone of decency and care about their fellow man. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

Judy Ann Opial, RN Retired.

Practical Libertarian, I think all your questions could be answered by looking at what started the Occupy movement.

There are hundreds, thousands of things these Occupiers would like to change. Many policies they want changed, many politicians they want replaced. But they believe (as do I) that the money Wall Street has makes it impossible to change anything. Until we can get this corporate money out of the government, they mostly think that the entire process is useless. They see Wall Street as having the true power, so they're taking the fight to Wall Street. All those other problems are problems they would like to address, but don't want to waste their time until they can actually do something.

I see the media is trying to portray the two groups as adversarial when in fact they are not.

One group arose from the outrage over the corruption in the healthcare reform process that forces us all into slaves for the insurance companies that put millions into the pockets of politicians we elected to represent our interests but are now being bought by the highest bidders.

The other group arose from the outrage over the corruption in the banking industry after watching our government refuse to prosecute the bankers who committed the largest financial fraud in the history of the world and stole trillions from taxpayers.

Both groups are not happy because of corruption. Same corruption, different trigger events.

We are not adversaries. We are like Russia and the US during WWII... two different armies fighting a common enemy. Would we be friends if not for the war? Probably not, but that does not make us enemies in the war against corruption.

I see the media is trying to portray the two groups as adversarial when in fact they are not.

Actually they are, one is fringe right wing and the other is mainly fringe left wing... One group advocates knocking down the remaining regulation and federal power to do anything and the other advocates vastly increasing it, especially for financial matters. They are two diametrically opposed goals that will never meet in the middle.

Oh please, the Tea Party is simply about removing "that man" from the white house.

The Tea Party contradicts itself so often, that there is no clear platform or objective.

Other than, putting "that man" in the back of the bus.

LMAO.. two 70+++ year olds for the tea party..

the Occupy movement is one that is about the real future of humanity. The tea party is obviously about yester year and more of the same

I posted this on another vine, but if you're having trouble understanding OWS, read this...

Anyone who's calling these people losers has a fundemental misunderstanding of what Capitalism is and how our financial system actually operates. We haven't had a Capitalist system in this country for about 30 years. Our current market isn't free. This isn't class warfare, it's an attempt at class cooperation, to get both those both politicians and Wall St. bankers who've profitted from this rigged system, not to give away their money, but to free up the opportunities we've lost, and to reform the system so that our needs align.

Let's break our system down first...

• CDO's (consolidated debt obligations) are enormous bonds comprised of mortgages, asset backed securities, credit loans, all rolled into one. They come with big pay outs. I mean BIIIGGGG pay outs.
• CDO's are sold to the richest buyers, like state pension managers, who only invest in bonds that receive AAA ratings from a state backed organization.
• AAA's are given out dependant on the average overall credit rating of each person who's debt is tied up in the CDO. But hold on, investment banks intentionally mixed super high risk loans with super low risk loans, to get that nice medium level, steady feeling needed for an AAA rating, HOWEVER, those super low risk loans didn't provide any protection should those super high risk loans fail. So they had the same overall credit rating as the CDO's comprised of the middle of the ground debts, but none of the steadiness of middle of the ground debtors. And yes, they did this intentionally, because it's easy to find people with bad credit who want to buy crap they don't really need in order to keep up with the Jones's.

Than, we mix into this the political/legal side of things...

• The SCOTUS Valeo decision that claims money is speech and allows for Wall St. to begin to buy deregulation.
• The repeal of Glass-Steagal
• FSMA that allows for a bank to be a traditional bank, investment bank, and insurance company all in one. This means, your bank can use your money as collateral against high risk investments, with no supervision, and insure itself with tax payer money.
• CFMA that deregulated deriviatives, and allows for "swaps". Basically, this means that the "too big to fail banks" created by FSMA are just tossing the debts back and forth, hoping not to be caught with them when the bubble bursts.

All of this added together means, no capital requirements, no transparency, no stoppage of manipulation/fraud. Our market has now gone from having aligned interests with the public, where banks invest in the most innovative and productive manufacturers, who are forced by the free market to higher standards, to the banks having their interests lay in dolling out as much debt to citizens as possible, regardless of the liklihood of that debt being paid back. Afterall, they're protected with tax payer money, and the Fed can always print more to cover up what's actually taking place.

These are complicated concepts that individually, without an advanced degree in economics, we might not all get, but what OWS does understand, what everyone can grasp, is that something is inherently WRONG. We have a whole class of political and intellectual elite in this country, pundits, think tanks, universities, politicians, who's job it is to figure this crap out for the people. It is part of the people's job to inform them that something is wrong. They have breached this contract and killed our opportunity, now OWS is excused from the contract, ergo a movement based in civil disobedience. That's the social contract called government. Our consideration is that we work hard and obey the law, which is what the majority of citizens, including those at OWS, do. Their half of the consideration is to ensure freedom and opportunity. That is class cooperation, not class warfare.

I've also posted this before, but the TP member it was addressed to never (couldn't) answer, so please someone riddle me this, the two things you all claim to be about are fiscal responsiblity and limited government, right?

As to fiscal responsiblity...

1. If you adjust the numbers to the ones that appropriately reflect what happened in the economy after they were passed, the Treasury Department estimates that the Bush Tax Cuts cost us $2.6 Trillion, and repealing them would make the debt as a share of GDP under 50%, ergo it would be at a managble level. Why isn't it fiscally responsible for us to do this?

2. No where am I saying we shouldn't slow back on the spending. However, focusing solely on discretionary spending, while ignoring revenue and defense is not fiscally responsible. You make a case for why we should cut spending, you don't however answer this question. How is it fiscally responsible to only use 50% of the tools we have available to solve the debt issue?

3. Well how about Obama's, with the CBO and DOL has measured at creating between 2 million and 4 million jobs. In fact, if the Republicans at the state level hadn't gone on a cutting binge which has increased layoffs of state employees, coupled with the recent private sector growth we've seen, unemployment would have dropped considerably. So how is dramtically limiting spending, specifically, discretionary spending, fiscally responsible?

As for "limited government"...

4. In Helvering vs. Davis, SCOTUS held that the commerce clause granted the legislature plenary power to impose taxes and spend money on the general welfare of the citizens. They than reaffirmed that in South Dakota vs. Dole. The widely held view of the general welfare clause is now interpretated as Hamiltonian, meaning a broad enumerated power of the federal government to assist citizens and promote the general welfare through spending. So

5. Seeing as marriage as a contractual agreement pre-dating religion, as you said, the government should stay out of it, yet the TP doesn't want them to, do they, so I'll ask again, how is that limited government?

6. The abortion issue??? Accidents do happen and contraception does fail. Unless of course you think women shouldn't be allowed to have sex since they have the wombs???As soon as you prove to me, via science, that a first trimester fetus is a human being, "forcing a women to be pregnant", against her will I might add, is quite accurate. Specifically in cases of rape. How is having an abortion, the government taking care of someone??? Where on earth did you get that idea. Being pro-choice, is about having the PERSONAL CHOICE and the PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY TO HANDLE IT HOW THE CITIZEN SEES FIT, as opposed to the government telling you what you can/can't do, ergo it's about the government NOT taking care of you and staying out of it. And, AGAIN, you didn't answer how letting the government decide this issue is limiting it.

7. Spying on citizens? How are the TP backed laws, like those that place unwarranted suspicion on Muslims, Mexicans, and poor people, i.e. drug testing without probable cause, infiltrated religious organizations without probable cause, and holding people indefinitly until THEY prove THEIR innocent, limiting government???

8. Voting??? I've never said we didn't have a reason to indentify people who are voting, I said we didn't have an uber compelling state reason to INCREASE identification standards. Can you find me one, just one, non-partisan study that found a voter fraud rate higher than 1%? You can't. The current rate according to every federal investigation and non-partisan study shows it to be about .0002%, which is completely negligible. So what's the reason, that passes strict scrutiny, for making ID's for voting harder?

All you have done is express the typical LIBERAL stand that government is "god", and should solve all YOUR and others problems. We guaranteed the right to pursue happiness NOT happiness itself. Long drawn out posts that only BLAME others and provides NO solutions is a typical LIBERAL method.

You want solutions? Stop SPENDING money we do not have. Stop TAXING EVERYTHING people do. Stop trying to "save" mankind from his/her own idiotic choices. If you want an abortion, then DO NOT expect to TAX me and give it to Planned Abortionhood. You want to drink and drive, then YOU PAY for the destruction you do to others lives. You want to smoke dope and do drugs then DO NOT expect to tax me for your rehab or your funeral, because you will not have a job you are able to do and earn money.

Most of your "arguments" are LIBERAL stiupidty. I do not need the government to even make marriage "legal" for me. You want to marry a goat and have sex with animals, have at it, but do not expect me to "accept" it as "valid" life style. You government is "god" types are always for using others money, hard work, and sweat for YOUR opinionated causes but if someone disagress with your causes they are wrong. I do not need you or government in my life for anything other than national defense and a very few basic government functions. Government was NEVER intended to allow or not allow you to be a pervert, drug user, drunk, bum, or plain stupd. However, LIBERALS think that when they do these things and act stupidly it is others responsibilty to pay their way.

Wars, I do not need them or want them. Social engineering and government have screwed up the world more than anything else, and yet you not only want more of it you want others to pay for what YOU think should be. Leave me alone, leave my money alone. Get out of my life and stop taxing me so you can do all the "noble" things you want to have done but are unwilling to do or pay for yourself. YOU stay out of my bank account and also out of telling me to "accept" you opinionated ideas of how things should be. I have stayed out of yours already, so get out of mine.

My question for the Tea Party (I have been asking these for over a year and every Tea Party supporter just stutters and stumbles over empty answers)

1) Why do you claim to support smaller government but want MORE government in our bedrooms... MORE government telling us who to love... MORE government telling us who to marry... MORE government telling us what to put in our body... MORE government telling us what we can / can not take out of our body... MORE government telling us what we can hear on airways... MORE government telling us what we can view on the TV? Why does the Tea Party definition of "smaller government" mean MORE government?

2) Why do you claim that people need to be "personally responsible" for their own decisions, yet you blame ALL of your problems on a single person in the White House, and refuse to take responsibility for your own situation?

3) Why are you against healthcare for those who can not afford it? If you had your way, and only those who can "afford it" get healthcare, what do we do with those who can't? If someone does not have the money, and get's sick, how do we prevent them from getting the rest of us sick? A disease and virus does not care how much money you have, so how do we protect ourselves? When a portion of the population, the poor, can not afford health care... and the Tea Party says: "sucks to be you", and refuse to help, this leads to an epidemic. So, how do we protect the rest of society from those who get sick and can not afford health care? How do we protect our children from the poorer children at school who remain sick? Do we quarantine a large section of the country, based on family income? What is your answer?

4) Why do the majority of your members complain about entitlements, yet use Social Security and Medicare for their own survival?

5) Do any of you... ANY Tea Party supporter... know the definition of "hypocrite"?

Now watch, not a single Tea Party supporter will be able to answer these questions.

What's sad is that the abuses of Wall Street created both "movements" but both have lost focus on the legitimate anger that should be felt toward the suit wearing clowns who helped tank the economy, the TEA party by taking a wrong turn down "Social Conservative Lane" and the Occupy folks by turning down "Mao Zedong Way" !!

Hypo - "So, I'm confused about what the Tea Party actually stands for? I constantly hear that it is against big government and taxes (on job creators), and supports free markets. So I would assume that they are pro-choice, pro gay marriage and support legalizing some drugs for starters...I mean, let the free market decide right?"

If they are truly for smaller government then they are for getting the federal government out of all marriage and people just having contracts, and then letting the citizens of the states vote on marriage.

As for pro-choice/life, again they are for a rule of law. Which basically states that if you murder somebody you are prosecuted. So the only things that needs to be decided is when killing somebody becomes murder. Again that is what the courts or congress should be debating.

As for legalizing some drugs, I believe that again is power that has been given to the states.

But as true smaller government person, the only real power the Federal Government has is to protect us from others not ourselves.

Indie,

I just asked a bunch of those same questions. I highly suggest you read Somelse's post. It's full of substantive answers. This was totally sarcastic.

Tom,

You sound reasonable, but explain how drugs can be a states rights issue. What happens if I take a drug in my state, where it's totally legal, and than drive to your state where it isn't?

Somelse,

Okay, so got the hateful rhetoric, evasion, disrespect, hypocrisy, and complete lack of self awareness down. What you didn't do however, was answer any of the points.

Next!

Tom

If they are truly for smaller government then they are for getting the federal government out of all marriage and people just having contracts, and then letting the citizens of the states vote on marriage.

The Tea Party is NOT for smaller government... the tag line makes for a good bumper sticker, but they definitely want MORE government in your personal married life

As for pro-choice/life, again they are for a rule of law. Which basically states that if you murder somebody you are prosecuted. So the only things that needs to be decided is when killing somebody becomes murder. Again that is what the courts or congress should be debating.

It is NOT just about "murder", you also have to take into consideration the personal rights of women to not have a foreign parasite feed off of her nutrients. In addition, there is the fiscal complication of increasing population size, specifically in welfare populations. Once again, the Tea Party shows how truly ignorant and blatantly stupid they really are. How? The Tea Party is against welfare entitlements, AND also against abortion. Thus, they want to reduce the amount we spend on welfare entitlements while ALSO increasing the population of those who require welfare. They have no solution to this dilemma.

As for legalizing some drugs, I believe that again is power that has been given to the states.

Again, MORE government... not "smaller". Whether federal or state level, government is government.

The problem is higher education and government...

What we have is a for profit business subsidized by the government - the feds fill student loans so just about anyone can attend college.

When the gov't foots the bill - there really is no reason to bring down prices. People that can't afford it will just get a loan. Instead of making education affordable for the individual, they simply make sure that the govt can keep paying people's tuition. University officials are living like mini-CEOs, with company cars, homes, the whole lot.

Because of this, Universities have a vested interest in keeping students onboard - they make it pretty hard to flunk out these days, and so what if you do? You can just get more loans in a year or so!

The state governments dont mind because they are getting all sorts of blowback from letting tuition skyrocket, and so long as the fed is paying them - who cares if their students can pay it back? Afterall, people care more about how good their football team is than how many of their students find employment after graduating or how good the actual education is.

Thankfully, many professors actually give a sh!t about education and do what they can to get you to learn. But no longer are college degrees something exclusive that sets you apart, no longer do they represent a major accomplishment. Any schlep can bungle their way through school, especially if they have plenty of cash to throw at their degree. You end up with a piece of paper for 4 years of payments and education that translates to little more than a 2-hour 'certificate of training' in an employer's eyes.

So there goes the graduate, with his very expensive piece of paper and already out-dated skillset - facing a job market of nepotism and pre-requisites that higher-education did not cover. There goes the graduate hopping on that hamster wheel with a monthly payment, lucky to find a job at all, he might as well forget his chosen field.

Unfortunately one must compromise, get your education in something you can market - somehow, anyhow. It doesn't have to be something you hate. If you want your job to be your hobby, you're living in a dream world.... funny thing is those dreams are better than any degree. Unfortunately employers don't see it that way.

Sarah, you have some good points that could be used to reduce the debt. The government should not rule out increasing taxes on the wealthy just as they should also NOT rule out a flat tax that would require all persons to contribute something to the country. Spending in this country must be reduced as well. You cite that Republicans in your state government increased layoffs, but whose going to pay for those workers and their benefits? Only increased taxes on those working will keep those employment numbers up. And you also cite the improved employment figures, however the unemployment rate has not appreciably changed if you include those whose claims expried and the underemployed. As for dramatically limiting spending, how is a return to a reasonable budget a drastic spending cut? We could add 1 trillion dollars in spending over 4 years to the budget the current administration began with (including the unfunded wars) and we would still need additional funding to get to where we are now.

As for your other points, I'm not a tea partier so I don't care. I believe in a womans right to choice as long as she pays for it or it's funded by her health plan. I also feel that same sex marriages should be legal with the benefits of mixed sex marriages. I do not believe that illegal aliens or their children should have access to services provided with my tax dollars. I believe that neither corporations NOR unions should have a right to influence elections.

I will just say this about large government though. When the increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans can no longer sustain our spending levels, you can bet that the criteria used to determine 'wealthy' and 'ability to contribute' are going to change to accomodate the increased need. I may be wrong, but judging by your comments you appear to be a liberal. No offense meant, but your solutions don't provide any bipartisan solutions like some of those I mentioned which is why this country is always in a stalemate on resolving problems.

Mikes Post on top, Reality on bottom...

Paranoid

Yes

No

Baseless

Yes

No

Unsubstantiated

Yes

No

Out of Context

Yes

No

Two Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back

Yes

No

Yada, yada, yada... Ladies and gentleman I give you exhibit A, while these two joining forces may never come to pass.

Here's my problem with that: nothing is free. People want "free" healthcare and "free" college educations, but the money has to come from somewhere. You know where? The taxpayers.

47% of all federal income tax returns amounted to a zero or negative tax returns. This means those people paid no income taxes or actually got money from the treasury. So almost half of the country pays no federal income tax, and we want more free services?

Let's compromise: once everyone pays taxes, then we can do that.

You almost got away with it Ruken. You tried spinning your argument from, "poor people don't pay income taxes" to "poor people don't pay taxes" (or rather the 47%). How about listing the thousands of millionaires (or corporations for that matter) that don't pay income taxes? I would like you to note that just because 47% don't pay income taxes, that doesn't mean that they pay no taxes. Everyone that buys goods, pays a sales taxes, everyone that buys fuel pays tax, etc. So please don't peddle this crap they people don't pay taxes.

Also, you are talking about "free" healthcare and eductaion with the bill going to the taxpayers. I say, why not? We are supposed to live in an advanced and civilized society, yet we have people who drop out of high school and can't afford college or healthcare. Perhaps requiring the rich to pay a grossly disproportionate part of the tax burden is unfair, but they should pay more as they 1. have more and 2. are afforded amenities because of their wealth.

You discussed debt in a few posts, explain to me how you expect an individual to go to school and come out over $100,000 in debt (with high interest loans) and be a productive member of society? How do you expect them to create a thriving economy (if we are basing our economy off of consuming) if the majority of their earnings are procured by the bank?

My personal opinion is that people in America are way too greedy. Explain to me why a CEO (particular a CEO that runs a company into the ground and gets severance packages) are entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, yet their employees are lucky to be making $40,000/year?

Calm,

These are my solutions, formulated a while ago...

1. Tax Reform: Close all corporate loopholes, and give their equivalent to anything considered a small business. Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest bracket. This one may shock you... implement a low rate national sales tax, that way we are also expanding our tax base. Legalize marijuana and tax the bejesus out of it. This would also create an entire new industry and much needed jobs.
2. Entitlement Reform: Means test for Medicare and Social Security. Raise the retirement age by five years for anyone under 45.
3. Wall St. Reform: Limit leverage, ban gambling in unresearched markets (i.e. credit default swaps and derivitives), create a fiduciary duty between borrowers and lenders, and limit bank size and duty.
4. Trade Reform: This should be a combination of economy wide liberalization and protection for exporters. Finally, allow for currency undervaluation to be calculated into imports.
5. Labor Union Reform: Create ethical oversight by an outside commision, or a middle man that does contracts, discipline, yada, yada, yada. Get rid of "first in last out". Increase protections for whistle blowers, and penalties for corruption.
6. Increase Investment Spending: This means stimulis spending on education, infrastructure and research and development.
7. Immigration Reform: Streamline the work visa system. Invest in (gasp) "anchor babies" as opposed to allowing them to rot.
8. Tort Reform: In terms of media and journalism, we need to crack down and hold the 24 hour news cycle accountable for false information. There needs to be better differentiation between "journalism" and "commentary".
9. Defense Spending Reform: End the wars. Seriously, end them.
10. PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING MONEY FROM POLITICS AND OVERTURNING CITIZENS UNITED AND VALEO.

Sarah,

I totally agree with your posts. Notice, still not one Tea Partier has been able to answer our questions.

Of course, Someoneelse went on a rant that can best be described as follows... "what he just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in his rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul."

So this thread started by complaining how the media chose the interviewees and proceeded to ask a bunch of ideological questions aimed at both movements. My question is: How exactly should the media be covering these two movements in order to be fair and widely inclusive of the views of both? They certainly can't interview everybody.

The ideology of both movements is similar. They just disagree on how bring about change.

I have seen many things posted that are moreso based on assumptions and gossip type of innuendo rather than facts. To Hyprocrisy1776 and similar thinking about the Dept. Of Education and it's failures. Do you people realize that since the inception of that Department, Congress has never given it actual authority to enforce it's so-called "policies"? It is primarily used by Congress for an "clearing house" of "studies", "researches", "findings" etc by way of the thousands of grant programs designated to and for it. Example: The Education of the Handicapped Act" (sic. original term, since modified). Most citizens do not know that there were and have never been enforcement provisions included in that Act. If any portion is violated, it is "us""we" individuals that are required to file and high cost lawsuit in an Federal Court, to try to enforce any or all provisions. So few School Districts and states have ever been actually penalized or had their funds cut due to violations as to represent 0% statistically. This being spread throughout the Department's "intent and purposes" represents an toothless entity as to providing appropriate Education. The general Tea Party concerns is generally based on this fact. IF that Department were to have the availability of "teeth" then maybe directions might change. To people of the opinion of Neverstop and Peteroid as to The Tea Party and Social Security, I would very strongly suggest that you review the 1933 (etc) law that set it up as an "retirement" program of primarily an "savings account" for citizens dollars. Although there may be some agreement as to it needing review and changes, to take away heard earned funds that most have paid into this retirement savings account would be similar to stealing citizen's money. This program MANDATED that working people put their money into it. As such, it is an entitlement same as one's own personal savings account as to those contributors should be allowed to receive back their pay-ins with associated interests. Also, most seem NOT to be aware that Congress (all parties) over the years have continually "ripped off" the funds by borrowing from it and not re-paying ( spending it elsewhere) that has resulted in the looming "crisis" the Fund is headed for. Under the original concept, (and as of 1971) a person would have to live to the age of 154 years to get all their money back with the interest accrued. The current situation is a basis for Tea Party and similar concerns as to government spending and operation controls. The Situation currently with Social Security has been solely caused by Big Government (Congressional) spending interests spiraling upward, rather than citizen abuse. In an nutshell. It has been Congress and Governmental borrowing and spending, robbing one area that has income to finance another that does not, then NOT supporting nor attending to rightful purposes and operational necessities that have been causing the problems. The Tea Party, (at least in this area of the country) has these types things as an concern and nothing has ever been said about giving anything to the rich, nor supporting the rich, as has been posted several times on here. Not one Tea Partyiers I have ever heard had mentioned anything about getting "freebies" nor special treatments of any type to nor for anyone or group as is seemed to be published about the . Only that the Government and our Congress take responsibility and control their actions as OUR representatives should. BTW, Tea Party people INCLUDE: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all ethnics, religions, cultures, and are an concerned democratic voice in this REPUBLIC country system.

On the last note; The United States of America IS an REPUBLIC operating with democratic principles and NOT and Democratic Government operating on Republic principles. An huge and more often ignored misnomer by a great many in the Occupy movements.

Poplicola- "the weatlhy" already pay vastly more in taxes than people with lower incomes. Ruken is right, a significant amount of our population does not pay anything in federal taxes. We need a tax system that is fair and flat and not based on discrimination. If you MAKE more money well than you are paying a larger amount but its still a fair percentage of your wage. Forget trying to pick winners and losers. Thats the problem with you folks, you pick out a group of people and somehow think that it's your right to have what they have or that they have somehow stepped on your rights to get where they are. Take some responsibility for yourself and quit complaining. America would be a lot better off if people kept thier mouths shut and focused on themselves. If you make dumb decisions then you are responsible and someone else isn't, if you make good ones than you are responsible and thats your deal too. Take some responsibility and stop whining!

Sarah

Legalize marijuana and tax the bejesus out of it. This would also create an entire new industry and much needed jobs.

I never understood why any Tea Partier or Republican would be against legalization. According to the Tea Party, and many GOPers, the only people who smoke are "liberal deadbeats", "welfare scum", "illegal aliens", and every other group they hate.

So, according to TP/GOP logic, legalizing and taxing would create a "liberal deadbeat"-only tax. Naturally, there are never any fine, upstanding Republicans who smoke weed. So only those "dirty liberals" would pay this tax.

Why would any Tea Party member be against a liberal-only tax?

Side note: it is actually quite entertaining to point this out, and watch as their thought process literally comes to a screeching halt.

While some of those opinions expressed my be by obly a few OWS memebers, it's fact that most of them are clueless, unsanitary and drug users. The stench coming out of their encampment in Portland was terrible. There was on OD, there was several beatings and robberies and there was cases of scabies and lice outbreaks. They completely trashed a nice park. The grass is gone and it's a muddy mess. The city of Portland had to spend thousands of dollars to clean up the mess and pay the police overtime. Even as liberal as Portland is...the majority of people here were pissed off and had no sympathy for them. I'm not even going tobother arguing which side is right... the facvt of the matter is that the majority of people involved in the Portland OWS were nothign more than a bunch of dirty hippies, druggies ans vagrants.

Apart from details, it seems to me that both popular movements had good basic instincts. The Tea Party demanded fiscal responsibility from the Government. -Correct! The Occupy Wall Street was basically a protest against the insane speculation on Wall Street that benefits a few biggies, and against the greed in Corporate America, which is Not against Capitalism, but it is actually sapping the strength of Capitalism, because only a few get the big bucks instead of distributing the benefit to all, including employees and investors, which would get more money flowing through the economy, creating jobs, and benefiting all. Everybody can see the basic inequalities and financial disaster that exist both in the government as well as in Wall Street and Corporate Executives. As for Wall Street, I say raise the lower limit for margin from 50% to around 75% to decrease wild swings in Speculation and declare that the maximum salary in dollars is $500,000 and the rest should be in company stock that cannot be sold until one year after the executive leaves the company. If the exec is good, the value of the stock will go up and there could be no speculation about buying and selling while in office !

In follow-up to IndieParty's questions (particularly in regard to Big Brother intrusion of privacy), I would also like to ask the Tea Party:

1) Supply and demand is basic economics I believe we can all agree on. However to generate demand, a significant percentage of the population (i.e., middle class, not 1%) need to have disposable income. To have disposable income, workers need jobs with decent wages. When the middle class does well, everyone does well including businesses and the rich. In other words it is a bottom up process, not "trickle-down" (voodoo economics). With this understood--and it should be after the economiv meltdown that debunked supply-side economics--why do Republicans and conservative supporters embrace a Race to the Bottom mentality of destroying labor and government policies and programs that help maintain a healthy middle class in the US?

2) Why do conservatives struggle so much with other economic concepts as well, such as the need for revenue as well as spending cuts (NO, we cannot cut spending to 18% of GDP--that would destroy us, so revenue is of course required), that tax cuts do not pay for themselves and are in fact a form of expenditure (and why the GOP/TP does not like the payroll tax cuts), and that government is not the enemy in a democracy and in fact "crony capitalism" is much more dangerous since we cannot vote against corporate abuses? Case in point, why don't they support re-instituting Glass Steagall and repealing Citizen's United?

3) (In follow-up to the many Tea Party folks on Social Security, Disability, Medicare, etc.) -- When the Tea Party refers to 47% who do not pay taxes, do they realize this includes themselves if they are using write-offs to show no income either as W2 employees with children ($1,000 each) and other tax breaks, or self-employed business owners who are cheating to evade paying taxes? Where is the "individual responsibility" here? Stop blaming the "poor" for everything and do your patriotic duty and pay your damn taxes -- The rates have never been lower in recent history for over a decade now, so you have NO excuse. I'm sick and tired of redistribution of my wealth (W2 single with no children and no mortgage) going to YOU.

4) In the face of factual statistics that show a skyrocketing disparity between the rich (1%) and the rest (99%), and that show wage stagnation and even a decrease resulting in a shrinking middle class with more and more Americans falling below the poverty line, why is the Tea Party so against an end to loopholes (tax evasion) and other policies for fairer taxation? Why not be against bad trade agreements, nation building wars, corporate deregulation that allows off-shoring of domestic production and jobs, etc.? I never hear Republicans talk about restoring the American Dream, with real ways to create good jobs, or even concern for the middle class so essential to democracy.

Okay, that'll do it for now, but an entire book could be written on Tea Party mythology.

Sarah, I agree with quite a few of your ideas. On entitlement reform, if payouts to higher income citizens is reduced or eliminated, then they should not have to pay into SS and Medicare. I like items 1, 3 and 5. As far as currency valuations relating to imports, the US exported near record levels the past few years. One of the reasons was the low value of thedollar relative to foreign currencies. I'm sure if we tied our imports to current exchange levels, other countries would do the same resulting in a push in the Eurozone, but perhaps a gain in the Asian markets.

I disagree on item 6. Our current education system is NOT working as evidenced by our standing in education vs. spending. Throwing additional dollars into a broken system is not going to fix it. Infrastructure is something deteriorating rapidly in this country and needs to be addressed. Private firms are most effective at R&D, as the government currently contracts most of this out to private corps.

I do believe in streamlining the naturalization process, but illegal aliens should not have priveleges that current citizens don't. Illegal aliens should not have access to programs funded by American citizens.

I'm not in favor of any program or law that determines what is appropriate for me to say or listen to in regards to journalism. If that were the case, there wouldn't be an MSNBC, FOX, NBC, CBS, or ABC.

Both groups are similar and want reforms that will make this country stronger.. Our government has allowed corporate machines to rape this countries wealth.. By wealth I mean money and skilled labor.. Why get an engineering degree when corporations will hire foreign workers at 1/3 the salary.. Many grads have learned this the hard way.. Even non degree level jobs have been paying less and many hard working Americans have become working poor.. I do not support tuition welfare for graduates with no job as that was their choice and gamble and they lost.. The low unemployment rate for this group just shows that most unsuccessful persons are either taking low paying jobs or are not seeking one at all..

Well, the official results of the un-official poll are in. 107 posts, but there are a lot of repeat posters. What has appeared here?

The TP voices are in the 'life's tough, make good choices, accept responsibility for your own bad choices, don't whine, and make the very best of every opportunity' group.

The OWS voices are in the 'lifes unfair, how was I to know?, it isn't my responsibility, waaaaaa, things aren't working out as I'd hoped' group.

Go back and check for yourself.

Thank you MSNPolitics.com. This was indeed a most decent debate from totally opposing views. I could feel all six participants are good decent people, each with their own patriotic and valuable points, I would be happy to call any of the participants a parent or sibling. There were no winners or losers here.

If we can have more such dialogues without bigotry and hate we'll all go back home and try put ourselves in their shoes to understand the merits of the others' arguments, it's human nature when you don't have a winner or loser, to improve your argument for the next round. This is just the beginning - the beginning of understanding what we are truly fighting for.

Bravo to all the six participants, many of us appreciate your views. Thank you for being sincere.

You bunch of imposters. Impostors.

Art employs its own language and its own culture. Just because YOU do not understand it - just because YOU have such a narrow understanding of how business operates - just because YOU have the aesthetic appeal of a vinyl pocket protector - does not mean that the arts have no value.

I have a job with my business degree. Can you say the same about your liberal arts degree?

and the ethics of that business degree?

We don't care...

My parents immigrated here. My dad... top 1% at his university in Taiwan, washed dishes when he first got here. My mom, worked as a nanny. The worked to where they got.

As a 1st generation, Chinese, we are instilled a work ethic that many don't have. You have to fight, scrimp and find your own opportunities. There are no hand-outs in life. I have a degree but I don't work in it. When I graduated college in 1992, nice recession then too. I don't work in the field I studied. Back then, 1 in 12 worked in their majors. Deal with it.

So.. OWSers... quit your bitchin and dig a ditch, unless as an American, you're too good for those jobs. Face the fact that you're unwilling to do what it takes to make a living and would rather complain. Losers blame. Winners accept responsibility. Which one are you?

Remember, America is the land of opportunity. You have to see it then grasp it. Make your own fortunes and don't complain when it isn't handed to you.

are you talking about the mormon church ?

Well said Imacad!! Why is the seemingly simple concept that to achieve success in life you may have to start at the bottom, work hard, sacrifice, save, and live within your means so hard for the OWSers to understand? Don't give up on all Americans yet Imacad - it's just this new generation of lefty liberals who were all told by their parents that they are "special" and given awards for sitting on the bench or being the loosing t-ball team. We were taught that we are not owed anything - that if we lose or fail that we don't get rewarded, but that instead we need to work harder, switch gears, and find a new way to try again until we succeed. I'm actually a ninth generation American, but my family still (all the way to 2nd and 3rd cousins) strongly teaches our kids that you need to work hard and plan ahead. I was 12 when I got my first checking account and my father taught me all about how much buffer to always have, how not to spend beyond my means, and that if I wanted something that cost more than I had then I had to save up for it or just do without if it was beyond what was reasonable to spend. At 15, I initially wanted to be an environmental lawyer and swim in the ocean to "save the dolphins", but after researching it I learned that there was not much of a chance at making a meaningful living doing that so I switched to a different kind of law where I could be more successful in my career. I took on student loans in college and grad school and never thought once about not paying them back - they were my obligation and I was actually thankful that someone would be willing to invest in my education at a measley 3% interest rate. OWS needs to grow up and realize everything is not free and they have to work hard and plan ahead if they want to do better in life.

I think the bottom line here is the greed of the banks, have caused this meltdown, and what sacrafice have they made. No one has answered the question yet why their profits are private, and their losses are everyone else's problem.

I have to agree with Imacad. Most of the time I lean to the left. But I get confused and put off by anyone who shouts an extreme point of view. I too, graduated in 1992 - into a recession and a terrible outlook in terms of getting a job. I worked my TAIL off. I had to live in a convent (yeah... a CONVENT!) in NYC in order to afford to live there and do the job I was thrilled to get. And those nuns were tough, let me tell you! LOL - But I worked my way up, moved out, got my own place. I did what my parents did. I worked long hours. And now I am more comfortable. But I was hit again last year by being downsized. I didn't camp out and whine. I hit the proverbial pavement and got another job!

I an impressed with Imacad, Coleslaw and Daisy. You are spot on. i am an independant and that means that I can get mad at all of them. I come from a working class background, dad worked 2 jobs most of his life and he worked sick or well. Both sets of my grandparents came here as young people from Europe where they had a really strong work ethic. No formal education so my parents had no college and my dad went to third grade only. But through hard work they made it and taught me the following: life is not fair, there will always be the haves and the have nots. They said to work hard and save money and try to keep as much as you can. They said that anyone can work 40 hrs and collect their pay but they expected me and my brother to give 110% and work harder and longer. I have taught both of my children the same and they are doing well. They complain all the time about the taxes they pay for waste in government and the fact that soooo many people pay no taxes at all. Now that is not fair. I don't care if someone earns 12,000 or 12 million a year, both need to pay taxes. My neighbors daughter paid in 3,300. in 2010 and got back 5,100. last spring. Now just who paid taxes. Where did the money come from to let her get back so much more? It was the top 1% that's who. I don't like the big banks or wall street but I like even less the thought of redistribution of wealth. Ok now I'm off my soapbox.

Where does this idea that only out of work losers are OWS people. I have worked every day for the last 30 years and I assure you I probably pay more taxes than several of you combined. I absolutely support the OWS people.

Big Business must be brought to heel and that is what OWS is all about.

You're right, OWS should just shut up and let those old white people on social security and Medicaid cut taxes for the rich and destroy the economy and social safety net for all of us younger people so that we'll be screwed when we become their age.

Oh, just FYI, if the Tea-Partiers had their way your parents never would have immigrated here. They would have told them to go back to their countries and stop having what they refer to anchor babies because they hate immigrants and hate miniorities.

Oh, and most of the 1st and 2nd generation Chinese I know don't have an inflated sense of self-worth and racial superiority. Maybe your parents just did a poor job raising you.

Sideliner - you are less than half right. It is the corrupt federal government that created the environment that allowed these crooks to operate for so long, to the detriment of the citizens of our nation. Republicans and Democrats in DC caused this mess. Then, these same morons PAID FOR THEIR MISTAKES with OUR MONEY!!!!!

DC is the problem not Wall St, not Corporations. DC - the Presidents, and the Congress. Bush, Obama, Nancy, Harry, Boehner, etc...

I like how one side blames the banks, the other blames the goverment. Why do so very few blame those whose fault this mess really belong to? Us!!!!!! If someone didn't take out the loan to buy the house they couldn't afford, if they didn't take out the loan to buy the car or the TV or something else that they COULD NOT AFFORD, this would not of happened. No one, forced them to get those loans. The banks and the goverment didn't stop them. It can be argued that the banks should of said no, you can't have 300k loan when you make 20k a year, that is pretty stupid on their part, but they didn't force them to sign those papers. You are allowed to drive your car 80 mps into a wall, doesn't mean you should. Now, tax payers of the USA and China have to fix their stupidity.

People say DC is the problem, well who elects those people? Again, the answer is we do!!! OWS people say corperation do, I have never seen one in a voting both, they reply that they do it with their money on ads ect. You are still the one who makes the final decision, accept responcibility for what you do and the world will be a much better place.

Midleman. Exactly!

That's the problem. Divide and concur. This country is screwed.

Divide and concur

Did you mean "divide and conquer" or "divide or concur?"

Sorry for the spelling. I hate when that happens.

Fbiker and Mary: Actually, it's kind of a Freudian slip of a spelling mistake. :) Of course, you meant "divide and conquer," but the original point was that they are divided, but agree (concur) more than they realize. I'm usually a member of the grammar police (sorry, my grandmother beat it into me), but I kind of liked your mistake (I think mostly 'cause you admitted to it nicely).

I think the BIGGEST problem in this country is the amount of hostility one side has for the other - and it's SO RIDICULOUS!!! "Teabaggers hate the Poor!!" "OWS wants to duck responsibility!!" Who can really believe this crap??? Not a single question to present to the panel, just a bunch of villification! IF I could ask the panel a question, it would be "can you get past the ideological baggage and come to a consensus on ANYTHING?" Because that's what this country REALLY needs!

Mary Jones - sorry for the late follow-up. I like your misspelling - flbikerchick said it well: "divide or concur." Great word coinage; both "iterations" approach analogy (that is, partly the same, partly different).

I was going to post the above earlier after 3.3, but had to leave until now. I see Daisy 70's reply was in the same 'bailiwick.' Good show!

Listen, I would love for them to join forces, but that just isn't going to happen until the TP gets rid of the screwy social issues that turn non-fundementalists off. Don't even claim that isn't a major factor in your rhetoric TP, we've all seen it, personhood amendments, "gay agenda" comments, increasing government scrutiny without probable cause on anyone, who's any shade of brown.

First, we need to get money out of politics, than we need to drop the "Christian" agenda, the rest is simply economics and math.

T Bourlon, I don't think there is much to ask either group; I doubt either group represents mainstream America. We learned that the loudest voice gets heard. Unfortunately, the loudest voice is the fringe or extreme. When they get a panel of moderates together that want to come up with realistic solutions, then I'll ask questions.

So if the TP gets rid of the "screwy social issues," what is the OWS going to give up?

Well, what do you have an issue with? When you get rid of the social issues, what's really left that they don't agree on, or can't compromise on?

Let's see, economics: OWS more in line with socialism, TP more in line with capitalism; Regulations: OWS believes that more regulations will allow business to prosper, TP believes that less regulation will allow business to prosper;

As for the "screwy social issues" I would assume that you are talking about things like abortion, drug legalization, etc. But I don't believe that those are major issues of the tea party. I think that the tea party is more interested in reducing the size of government. A streamlined government that is more efficient, streamlined regulations etc.

Bohn,

How are they more aligned with Socialism, I posted this above, it's what's actually going on in our system...

Let's break our system down first...

• CDO's (consolidated debt obligations) are enormous bonds comprised of mortgages, asset backed securities, credit loans, all rolled into one. They come with big pay outs. I mean BIIIGGGG pay outs.
• CDO's are sold to the richest buyers, like state pension managers, who only invest in bonds that receive AAA ratings from a state backed organization.
• AAA's are given out dependant on the average overall credit rating of each person who's debt is tied up in the CDO. But hold on, investment banks intentionally mixed super high risk loans with super low risk loans, to get that nice medium level, steady feeling needed for an AAA rating, HOWEVER, those super low risk loans didn't provide any protection should those super high risk loans fail. So they had the same overall credit rating as the CDO's comprised of the middle of the ground debts, but none of the steadiness of middle of the ground debtors. And yes, they did this intentionally, because it's easy to find people with bad credit who want to buy crap they don't really need in order to keep up with the Jones's.

Than, we mix into this the political/legal side of things...

• The SCOTUS Valeo decision that claims money is speech and allows for Wall St. to begin to buy deregulation.
• The repeal of Glass-Steagal
• FSMA that allows for a bank to be a traditional bank, investment bank, and insurance company all in one. This means, your bank can use your money as collateral against high risk investments, with no supervision, and insure itself with tax payer money.
• CFMA that deregulated deriviatives, and allows for "swaps". Basically, this means that the "too big to fail banks" created by FSMA are just tossing the debts back and forth, hoping not to be caught with them when the bubble bursts.

All of this added together means, no capital requirements, no transparency, no stoppage of manipulation/fraud. Our market has now gone from having aligned interests with the public, where banks invest in the most innovative and productive manufacturers, who are forced by the free market to higher standards, to the banks having their interests lay in dolling out as much debt to citizens as possible, regardless of the liklihood of that debt being paid back. Afterall, they're protected with tax payer money, and the Fed can always print more to cover up what's actually taking place.

So how do you consider capital requirements, a limit on leverage, transparency, limiting bank size and making fraud in our banking system, socialism???

These are complicated concepts that individually, without an advanced degree in economics, we might not all get, but what OWS does understand, what everyone can grasp, is that something is inherently WRONG. We have a whole class of political and intellectual elite in this country, pundits, think tanks, universities, politicians, who's job it is to figure this crap out for the people. It is part of the people's job to inform them that something is wrong. They have breached this contract and killed our opportunity, now OWS is excused from the contract, ergo a movement based in civil disobedience. That's the social contract called government. Our consideration is that we work hard and obey the law, which is what the majority of citizens, including those at OWS, do. Their half of the consideration is to ensure freedom and opportunity. That is class cooperation, not class warfare.

And really, the TP isn't about the crazy social issues??? Than please explain why they back/support candidates that waste the legislatures time trying to overturn Roe v Wade? Why are the states that are stripping unions, passing voter restriction laws with a voter fraud rate of .0002%, forcing anyone that looks Mexican to prove they're here legally, screaming about the sanctity of marriage and advocating for spying on Muslims ALL controlled by the right? Bachman, Palin, Santorum, Perry, Haley, Cain, Gingrich... Where do they all stand on these social issues and who's vote are they trying to get???

It's not as if the Tea Party side is remotely monolithic either. If so they could just have one person from each group. Sure, 3 people doesn't truly represent OWS, but neither does 3 represent TP. But trying to get 50 people with occasionally coinciding viewpoints across wide ranges of issues the group members 'stand for' would be completely useless. At least with 3+3, you get something like a comprehensible conversation. And if they're really representative of their 'groups', I'd assume they'll still show a fair amount of disagreement on issues and priorities among the members of one group.

To the Tea Partiers: If you got what you wanted and the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, the DOE, and other government agencies were gone, do you believe airplanes, cars, water, the environment would be safer without them and how so?

e.g. the auto manufacturers fought for years against a simple lap belt that probably cost a few dollars to be installed in cars. They fought against air bags, anti-pollution devices and anything else that cost money.

If they had their way we would be driving 8 thousand pound SUVs with lots of gadgets to enhance saleability without any of the above. What would the air look like in your city then? Rather than 40,000 dying from automobile accidents each year, what would that number be?

What would the air look like in your city then?

China, but by then it would be a billion dollar cleanup project that none of them would want to fund. Its a lot more expensive and hard to clean up and redesign a city when you have 60 years of pollution and population growth in the way.

the auto manufacturers fought for years against a simple lap belt that probably cost a few dollars to be installed in cars. They fought against air bags, anti-pollution devices and anything else that cost money.

and yet they make multi-million dollar advertising campaigns focused around safety features or clean energy. go figure.

SlightRight,

This is off topic, but I love your picture. That is the best movie ever!

"We're gonna have the hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Gene Kelly tap danced with Danny Fu($* Kaye!"

Marty,

While I do believe that there may be some benefit to having agencies (like the EPA, etc.) the problem with them is that they have a tendency to over regulate. It is almost like they have to come up with new regulations or they will lose funding. Working in a regulated industry, I know that there are regulations that are necessary for the safety. But in my opinion, they go too far in some instances. I think that too many regulations make it virtually impossible for an entrepreneur to create a new company that he would have to comply with.

Easy: whichever party thinks it will get them the most votes will SAY they stand for working class people. The problem is that they won't actually follow through. After all, working class people don't have enough money to buy their own representatives.

well one party wants to take from the wealthy to give to those that are out of work. and one party wants to leave the wealthy with their money so they can create jobs for those that are out of work.

we gave the wealthy tax cuts under Bush to create jobs and they failed. We want our money back, instead of more job killing tax cuts for the wealthy job killers.

It's the Tea Party, as they are made up of working class folks, representing themselves.

...With their funding and coordination provided by billionaires.

...With their funding and coordination provided by billionaires.

I'm sorry Toasty, but both parties are funded by corporations and billionaires.

Mark, you do realize that most Wall Street Execs are Democrats - do you not? Apparently not. Obama received far more Wall Street campaigns donations then did McCain. You have been sucked in by an urban myth that Republicans are in the pockets of Big Business while the Dems are looking out for the little guy. It was Democrat policies out of Washington that opened the door for the housing collapse and Dodd-Frank doesn't hurt the big banks near as much as it does your local bank.

Neither is the answer one wants to take from the wealthy to fund jobs programs but the people they elect won't follow through. The other wants to give the wealthy breaks so they create jobs but they'll just pocket the money they didn't get rich by investing unless it's good for them and the market for the last 11 years hasn't been that good.

Ruken,

I didn't realize OWS was funded by corporations and billionaires? For some strange reason, I was under the impression OWS opposed big businesses? Also, I was under the impression OWS wants to get big business out of politics so our elected officials can start representing the people who actually voted them in office. Then again, I suppose people are asking too much when they want elected officials to actually do their jobs.

Oh sure Toasty, the billionaires (all whopping 400 of them) are in diabolical league with the Tea Party. Good thing OWSers don't use Microsoft or Apple products, or buy things from Wal-Mart or Amazon, or do searches on their multiple computer devices using Google, or eat any candy bars by Mars, or wear Nike shoes or else they too would be in league with those billionaires. Oh, wait...

Onesoul, since I live in NYC I got a front row seat to the OWS circus. It became a nightly joke by the local news guys who would go out and show all of the loads of corporate products the OWSers were using, and then whining about being stolen by other OWSers. Watching a ranting OWSer scream about the evil corporations while typing on his Apple laptop, eating McDonalds, and wearing his Nike shoes/tshirt was hilarious.

Malarky,

Everyone knows both parties are funded by Wall Street Execs and big businesses. The thing that alludes a lot of people is that for some strange reason the Democrats seem to try and do more for the middle class. More so then the Republicans.

Everyone can state their opinions on why the housing market crashed but in my opinion, it doesn't solve the issues we are currently facing. One big problem is people are too busy pointing fingers and never addressing the actual issues.

Ruken,

I didn't realize OWS was funded by corporations and billionaires? For some strange reason, I was under the impression OWS opposed big businesses?

Please re-read my post. I said both parties are funded by...as in our two political parties. In no place in that post do I mention OWS.

One more little tidbit for you Onesoul - OWS in NYC was fully funded by the NY Unions (talk about stinking rich, corrupt, and powerful) and ACORN (disbanded and prosecuted due to corruption but reformed in NYC under a pseudonym). The best part was when ACORN sent people out across Long Island going door to door asking for donations to supposedly help remove asbestos and other dangerous chemicals from the schools, then taking that money and giving it to OWS to fund them. If you don't believe me, do a simple Google search....

onesoul (assuming you were not being sarcastic) and toasty - Have you not heard of George Soros and Peter Lewis? How about the SEIU and the AFL-CIO and other unions putting both money and people out in the ranks of OWS to get this - if I may I borrow an adjective from Ms. Pelosi - astro-turf movement started? Are you accusing Bill Gates and Warren Buffett of being rightwing nutjobs? One final note: Say what you will about the Tea Party but a least they clean up after themselves and do not destroy the property of people that have nothing to do with Wall Street.

Astro-turf Movement! LOL!! That's great Malarky!

It used to be the Democratic Party, but ever since they drank Ronhole Raygun's voodoo-flavored Kool-Aid and bought into market-based non-solutions, of which "Obamacare" is one, the only party I would trust to stand for not just the middle class but those who either fell from the middle class or never got there in the first place is the Democratic Socialist party. It took leftist thinking to get us out of the Great Depression, and the double-dip was the result of listening to conservative advice to cut back on the stimulus. Lack of regulation caused the Depression, just like deregulation caused the S&L crash and FSLIC bailout BEFORE we were rid of Reagan AND the Great Recession as the END RESULT of market-based stupidity and decriminalization of organized crime.

Coleslaw,

I Googled it but could not find anything about ACORN and OWS. Maybe you could provide a title and/or authors, and especially some text? The same goes for "OWS in NYC was fully funded by the NY Unions."

> Astro-turf Movement! LOL!! That's great Malarky!

Malarky for sure, but I'd use a stronger term than "malarky." :P

Kryss - here you go... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/

Some key excerpts:

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names after undercover video exposes prompted Congress to cut off federal funds. It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Sources said cash donations collected by NYCC on behalf of some unions and various causes are being pooled and spent on Occupy Wall Street.

In one such case, sources said, NYCC staff members collected cash donations for what they were told was a United Federation of Teachers fundraising drive, but the money was diverted to the protests. Sources said staff members also collected door-to-door for NYCC’s PCB campaign — which aims to test schools for deadly toxins —but then pooled that money together with cash raised for the teachers union and other campaigns to fund Occupy Wall Street. “We go to Freeport, Central Islip, Park Slope, everywhere, and we say we’re collecting money for PCBs testing in schools. But the money isn’t going to the campaign," one source said. "It’s going to Occupy Wall Street, and we’re not using that money to get schools tested for deadly chemicals or to make their kids safer. It’s just going to the protests, and that’s just so terrible.”

Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures. “I went to the protests every day for two weeks and made $10 an hour. They made me carry NYCC signs and big orange banners that say NYCC in white letters. About 50 others were hired around my time to go to the protests. We went to protests in and around Zuccotti Park, then to the big Times Square protest,” she said. “But now they have me canvassing on Long Island for money, so I get the money and then the money is being used for Occupy Wall Street—to pay for all of it, for supplies, food, transportation, salaries, for everything ... all that money is going to pay for the protests downtown and that’s just messed up. It’s just wrong.”

I also have not heard about this. Do you have any links to reliable news sources?

Thanks for the source, Coleslaw, but this doesn’t mean any of this is true. It’s not really any surprise that NYCC denies this, but they also have not been found to be guilty of these charges. As far as I know, Republican Darrell Issa has called for an investigation into the matter (Fox news, Nov. 2011) and I’m not even sure what happened beyond that.

Any sources on how these two things “fully funded” an OWS occurrence in NYC?

Not for those of us that think both groups are a crock.

No it's not. There would be pretty much no way this would happen. Occupy has many goals absolutely opposite of the Tea Party. Why even ask the question?

willowbrook,

I would say there are at least two things the groups have in common: the belief that money has a corrosive influence over Washington (whether from big corps or unions), and the belief that the government exerts far too much power over their individual lives and personal choices.

Imagine if we could elect people that represent US and in turn they pass legislation to stay out of our pockets, our bedrooms, our bongs, etc.

If we ALL as Americans could form a cohesive platform around even just those two items, Washington WOULD be terrified. The question is only whether we can find that cohesion.

Hopeful but not optimistic.

JM, absolutely correct. Both ultimately have the same goal, get the money out of the politicians and businesses hands. Social Security would be much more solvent if congress hadn't said, ooo look there's money...oh but its for senior citizens...oh don't worry, we'll just borrow it and let the next generation pay for it. Occupy is pissed off because of the financial mess the large banks have caused the world. from real estate bubbles, to adversly affecting commodity prices(oil). on top of that we give our money to them to fix the problem and no one goes to jail to pay for their crimes against humanity.

Really I think both movements are looking to right the ship that our politicians have screwed up. Fair tax rates, accountability, responsible money management, Fairness in government, instead of government kowtowing to busniness interests. All lofty goals but where we need to head. Government for the people, by the people.

> The Tea-Party wants less regulation to make opportunity more fair.

Despite the fact that deregulation was the ultimate cause of the screwing we got from the criminal 1% of the 1%, i.e., the banking racket. It was quite predictable, because the same laissez-faire (lousy fare) attitude cause the Great Depression, for anyone intelligent enough to learn from history. What does that say about teabaggers? And conartistives in general?

Sigche its truly easy to see why you support the occupy group. Almost ever sentence that you typed begins with "I want"...

yeah "i want (blank) for someone else" not " i want (blank for me" like the teaparty

yeah "i want (blank) for someone else" not " i want (blank for me" like the teaparty

You clearly missed the article a few weeks back in which Occupy LA was demanding food and water from the state for their camp.

Is this the same Occupy LA that go evicted by the Mayor? The former head of Southern California operations for the ACLU no less!

Is this the same Occupy LA that go evicted by the Mayor? The former head of Southern California operations for the ACLU no less!

I don't know? Maybe?

BAX, when stating your ideas you write "I want" or "I believe" not "IT IS THIS!"... thats just logic, congratulations on pointing out english grammar.

YOU used his name first, and periods!!!

Also you attacked someone stating their belief's and called them greedy based on it, you must be a tea partier.

How about allowing those that broke the rules to go under along with the criminals that bkd them?

To the tea party, where in the constitution does it state that gay marriage should not be allowed? Isn't doing so government overreach and a breach of individual freedoms and liberties? And if you are saying that it is 'states rights', then you are ok with state mandates for health insurance like Mitt Romney created in Mass? If not, are you okay paying higher premiums to cover uninsured persons who use the ER?

Regarding healthcare, Bara, how do you feel about the SCHIP issue in Arizona that first arose in 2010?

baracalypse... but when Bush took over in 2000 we had very little national debt.. When he left in 2008 all of his policies were in play. Unemployment was rising extremely fast and we were 8 trillion in debt and needed to do something desperate to stop a catastrophe.

it takes years for any policy to be put into play and to see their effects.> bush's policies have been in play, and they have been showing their true colors since 2008, and only now are we starting to crawl back from the abyss because only now has Obama's policies started to take hold.

If you would pay attention to things beyond the standard liberal soundbite you woud know Obama signed several bills far more reaching into our lives than the Pat Act. But you probaly won't.

More importantly, if it isn't because of the President's skin color, what is the reason that tea partiers attack their own proposals and ideas the moment the President agrees with them?

sonia, president obama has also taken a firm stance to not work with the tea party. heck, bill daley just quit over it!

More importantly, if it isn't because of the President's skin color, what is the reason that tea partiers attack their own proposals and ideas the moment the President agrees with them?

I'm going to go ahead and state the obvious point you're making Toasty, because many here just won't get it.

The Tea Party attacks anything the President agrees with, even if it is correct, simply because they can't let him get a win.

"...what is the reason that tea partiers attack their own proposals and ideas the moment the President agrees with them?"

Such as?

"...what is the reason that tea partiers attack their own proposals and ideas the moment the President agrees with them?"

Such as?

Obamacare based off Romneycare, Newt Gingrich has memos praising Romneycare but yet he bashes Obamacare.

Many provisions in the American Jobs Act were previously bipartisan and were rejected by GOP members without even reading the bill. Didn't you watch Obama's speech?

Social: "...you would know Obama signed several bills far more reaching into our lives than the Pat Act."

Like what? A mandate to get health insurance (something you would be stupid not to do anyway) is hardly a catatrophe and was originally a Republican idea anyway.

ruken, fair point but i have to say Romney's bill was for Massachusetts. Massachusetts, or any other state, has the right to do as they wish regarding this. Its a states' rights issue not a federal mandate. Massachusetts can afford to do things other states cannot. What they cant afford is to have the tax money they send to the fed not be returned because its now going to other states who come up short in covering the expenses of this federal bill.

You people are confusing Republican with Tea Party. I don't know of a serious conservative that likes Romney in any form. He certainly isn't embraced by the Tea Party. And if you had any idea that he was before reading this post that means you're out of touch with what the Tea Party really is and you really should educate yourself before you go spouting off more nonsense.

Jock, you do know the Patriot Act was expanded and extended by Obama, don't you? Are you really that out of touch with what he's been up to during his term? Educate yourself!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/

Jock, on May 27th Obama signed a 4 year extention of the Pat Act. It was designed to run out and return our freedoms. But HE extended it too... Completely going against his promise.

Just a little over a week ago he signed the National Defense Authorization Act.... Makes the Pat Act look like after school detention. You Libs only get HALF the news.

The Tea Party doesn't like an idea simply because it is Barack's? Really? Ask any member of the Tea Party why they don't like Romney and they will likely start the list with Romneycare. Most of those commenting on the Tea Party haven't a clue what the Tea Party is about. They are NOT into social issues as some have claimed - which is not to say that its members don't have their own values. The Tea Party wants to return to our Constitutional principles while OWS would just a soon tear it up - save their misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

Just a little over a week ago he signed the National Defense Authorization Act.... Makes the Pat Act look like after school detention. You Libs only get HALF the news.

Which was approved by the GOP controlled Congress, was it not? If you're going to blame someone, be sure to include the entire Legislative branch as well.

The Tea Party wants to return to our Constitutional principles

Our original Constitution had it so only white male landowners could vote. Is that one such principle they'd like to return to?

@Ruken

"Obamacare based off Romneycare, Newt Gingrich has memos praising Romneycare but yet he bashes Obamacare."

A single small state run system is worlds different than a nationally run 50 state system. Also the people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly wanted that type of healthcare system. The majority of the national population do not want Obamacare.

"Many provisions in the American Jobs Act were previously bipartisan and were rejected by GOP members without even reading the bill."

Because the AJA had many other provisions that were opposed by the GOP. This bill, as with the healthcare bill was originally an "all or nothing" bill untill the president was FORCED to break it up into smaller bills.

The majority of the national population do not want Obamacare.

I'm pretty sure that claim is highly debatable.

50% of people don't like Obamacare because the Conservatives have lied about what's in the bill.

When, in polls, you ask about specific parts of the bill, like insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, no lifetime monetary limits on insurance, etc. support jumps.

Tell Americans the truth and THEN let them decide. Remember those supposed Death Panels?? Now, of course, those have become a joke.

"Because the AJA had many other provisions that were opposed by the GOP. This bill, as with the healthcare bill was originally an "all or nothing" bill untill the president was FORCED to break it up into smaller bills."

And then, the Repubs proceeded to reject those smaller bills too. Hypocrites.

Please don't knock the patriot act after my money runs out in 5 years my only hope for survival may be to get arrested under it. That way I can have 3 hots and a cot, free food, and clothes as long as I can convince them I'm crazy enough to be picked up.

Lonereb,

Under the NDAA you won't have to work very hard to convince them you're crazy. But you'll get your 3 hots from the military.

Ruken - you are referring the norms of the day, not the principles. You have absolutely no perspective of the 18th century and are being loose with what I stated. I'm surprised you didn't imply I wanted to return to slavery. Which, by the way, was an institution many of the founders disdained. But, when you are trying to unify 13 seperate colonies with different cultures in a fight against the biggerst power in the world, that became a fight for another day.

slight right

sonia, president obama has also taken a firm stance to not work with the tea party. heck, bill daley just quit over it!

-----------------------

Please name one tea partier who has offered to work with the president? Even when he has a deal with the House Speaker, they balk.

"And then, the Repubs proceeded to reject those smaller bills too. Hypocrites"

No because all of these smaller bills had Democrat spending amendments attached them that increased the deficit. The Democrats refused to remove the amendments.

More appropriate section to post below.

Ruken... I can't figure you out! LOL - Some of the time your comments make me want to scream and then the next, I'm nodding in agreement. You have me befuddled (that's a compliment, just fyi - you're making me think).

Most people have no understanding of the new health care law and many do not wish to. Same with universal health care. Most people who claim to dislike "big government" are most, or potentially most, dependent upon it. They simply do not wish to share It with others. The "tea party" is no more than a yard, to the right extreme of the whole republican party, which uses religion, family values, anti homosexuality, and extreme conservatism that really overlaps with raw fascism to arouse the lesser minded. Their specific objectives are a "Plutocratic government absent persons of racial qualities,religious and political affiliations, not befitting their construction".

Daisy70 - I am with you about Ruken, I guess that is o.k. though it is what makes America a democracy. I am pretty sure Ruken is an independent thinker and I applaud him for that even if we don't agree on every issue. Ron Paul in 2012 Ruken?

yeah Tracy how about some proof about your claims... ? You got nothing

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2314-Another-Jobs-Bill-Bogged-Down-By-Superfluous-Amendments

Any more work that I need to do for you considering you were too lazy to research it yourself?

actually, they did know banks were greedy and most did not support a central bank idea for that reason.

Well then you must be a Tea Party memeber.

Or an OWS member. That is one of many things they both essentially agree on (or should).

I want to see term limits set for ALL congressmen and women so that money influence problem you have with lobbists will be drastically reduced. The fact these people in congress MUST have this money to run their campaigns to get re-elected and keep their jobs shows just how broken our representative government is.

I want to see term limits set for ALL congressmen and women

Now there's something we can agree on.

One problem with limiting political campaign contributions is that it would provide incumbent politicians with an even greater advantage - particularly a sitting president who holds the bully pulpit. Term limits would be better, but it would require passing an amendment that has to begin with the very same people much of the public wants to kick out. The same holds true with putting a check on their pay and benefits. And lets not let the voters off the hook. It is them, after all, that keep returning the same people back to Congress.

I want to see term limits set for ALL congressmen and women so that money influence problem you have with lobbists will be drastically reduced. The fact these people in congress MUST have this money to run their campaigns to get re-elected and keep their jobs shows just how broken our representative government is.

We did that in California on the state level and it has been a huge failure. All that occurs now is that they bounce from office to office. Also since they are never in any position for too long the constituents never get a chance to see just how crappy they are and vote them out.

The American electorate can excercize its option to impose term limits every two years (for House members), every four years (for presidents) and every six years (for senators). Regardless of media spin, super-pac slant or self-imposed ignorance, no one puts a gun to any voter's head and forces him or her to support perpetual incumbency.

Is the Tea Party pushing to repeal the Citizens United decision?

Term limits will require a Constitutional amendment.

It's clear you don't BUY health insurance. Our rates have gone up 25% since that stupid bill was signed. Maybe if you had the balls to pay for your own stuff you would know this.

Much of the bill isn't even effective yet Social Justice.

That's because now we're paying the full price of keeping a country alive instead of cutting costs by letting poor people die. That tradeoff may sound fine for the teabaggers, but I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my premiums are cheap because we're letting people die.

That tradeoff may sound fine for the teabaggers, but I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my premiums are cheap because we're letting people die.

Depends on the people.

Those "poor" that would rather spend their money on smart phones and computers instead of insurance, then they get sick? I tend to have little sympathy for them.

"Our rates have gone up 25% since that stupid bill was signed"

But the bill didn't create the rise. If it had anything at all to do with the rise, it was probably because the insurance companies knew they could raise rates and convince the sheep to blame it on the bill. Either way, that's why we needed a public option. We knew it wouldn't work without that.

Seriously, this is why I cannot understand the rationale of the left.  How in the world does forcing health care insurance companies to provide coverage to 26 year olds and to cover pre-existing conditions REDUCE the cost of health care insurance?  After all, it was the increasing inaffordability of insurance that began this debate.  Tort reform, however, would be a good start, but the left screams NO! to that.  WhY?  Because the Dems are in the pockets of of trial lawyers. 

Aye if only we hadn't listened to the republicans and kept the public option, instead we let them have a say and got this mandate...

"And when Republicans fight for tax rates for multi-millionaires that are much lower than your own rate, you vote Republican. Why?"

Beacuse conservatives vote for tax cuts for EVERYONE. We also don't look at the government and whine about the wealthy getting a tax cut because we don't feel entitled to their money.....like liberals do eventhough they did absolutely nothing to earn it.

Seriously, this is why I cannot understand the rationale of the left. How in the world does forcing health care insurance companies to provide coverage to 26 year olds and to cover pre-existing conditions REDUCE the cost of health care insurance? After all, it was the increasing inaffordability of insurance that began this debate. Tort reform, however, would be a good start, but the left screams NO! to that. WhY? Because the Dems are in the pockets of of trial lawyers.

Providing the government alternative would force private companies to lower prices to compete.

Beacuse conservatives vote for tax cuts for EVERYONE.

Look at Mitt Romney's latest tax proposal and get back to me on that.

totally agree with ruken. I think that anyone who receives any type of federal aid should have to show a monthly accounting of their expenses. Its a win win for everyone. People cant abuse the system. Costs will go down. More money will be available for those that truly do need it.

malarkey - you are right that the bill doesn't work very well without the public option and some of the other proposed regulations to cut costs, but conservatives refused to allow those, so blame it on them.

And support for trial lawyers is not the only reason that Democrats are against so-called "tort reform." The campaign finance system is a fundamental problem that way, yes, but another reason is that "tort reform" is often code for limiting the liability of corporations that do actual harm to workers or the public or our environment.

well, not so much on the latest one

jock i agree with you for the most part except the malpractice limit. I know that if my wife went in to give birth and died due to a negligent doctor i would want more than 800K.

Mark,

It is disingenuous to promote only two things in a massive bill as being the reasons that Tea Party members may be against. The coverage for pre-existing conditions is ok in my opinion, although since regulation of health insurance is the purview of the States - the Feds overreached their authority.

Secondly - to make health care more affordable? The legislation has a great deal to say about health care insurance - it does not make the actual care more affordable.

I object to a singular section that would require me to buy health insurance. At my last professional position, I had good insurance. I paid 25% of the premium. Over the ten years I was there, I "paid" for my health care needs. I'm ok with that. Very happily, there weren't any catastrophic health issues. But the cost of that group plan included others with higher claims, and to an extent I was paying for their costs too. And I'm ok with that.

Since joining the ranks of the unemployed, I've needed very little medical care, and paid for it directly. No insurance. $110.00 for a 5 minute appointment - not at the emergency room. My insurance would have billed that at $60.00. And yes I do understand how they can do that. But insurance to cover my health care needs would've been twelve times what I paid direct.

Other than the financial upsurdity of the mandate. I don't think the Federal government can tell me I have to buy something.

Seriously, this is why I cannot understand the rationale of the left. How in the world does forcing health care insurance companies to provide coverage to 26 year olds and to cover pre-existing conditions REDUCE the cost of health care insurance?

Well, let me explain it to you malarky. People are going bankrupt because of medical expenses that should have been covered by their insurance. Those of us with pre-existing conditions can not get insurance at all. So, we end up going to the ER and getting free care. The hospitals then raise their rates to cover the loss. Those higher rates are paid by your insurance company who then raises your rates every year. Many 18-26 year olds are in college and need coverage but can't afford their own policy. Because there will be no Medicare buy-in (public option) available, there will need to be a mandate requiring everyone to purchase insurance. Otherwise insurance companies will go out of business. They need healthy people paying into the pool if they are expected to cover the sick. That's how it works.

It's a hoot to me that the left is blaming the Republicans who didn't have the power to stop the bill from passing for it having to be modified. So much for the chant I heard when Obama was elected that they didn't want or need the Republicans to be on board. That they would do what wanted and no one could stop them. But now? Everything that happens is because of the Republicans according to these same folks. What happened?

And I don't understand how those that howl against large corporations can possibly be behind a law that will now force them to pay these same corporations or face fines from the federal government. They're now beholden to a private entity under the threat of governmental reprimand. How rich is that one?

@Ruken

"Look at Mitt Romney's latest tax proposal and get back to me on that."

Who said Romney was a true conservative?

the democrat mind forgets they had total power for the first two years of obama.....yet did nothing to create jobs.....they instead went after govt controlled healthcare.

and got obamacare passed.....with 70% of americans against obamacare.

it is quite strange that the democrat blames republicans for not doing anything about jobs...when the democrats were in charge of the house and the senate.

but they are funny like that.

Who said Romney was a true conservative?

He's running for GOP office. I thought that was an indication he might be a conservative.

Of course, your opinion on what a true conservative might be could be anything, so there's no correct answer to that.

Romney is a conservative, but a Northeast conservative is considered a blud dog Democrat here in Texas. Make no mistake however, that if Romney does get the nomination I will support him considering the disasterous alternative of letting Obama be in office another 4 years.

the democrat mind forgets they had total power for the first two years of obama.....yet did nothing to create jobs.....

One thing the "democrat mind" remembers is the repubican-induced 108 cloture votes (aka, filibusters) during that same timeframe.

Look, neither side is a saint. They both do stupid crap and WE and up in the "grab-your-ankles" position every time. Why else would congress have a 9% approval rating. It is obvious that nearly EVERY SINGLE VOTER is fed up with the status quo. That is why it would be important for both OWS supporters and Teaparty folks unite behind the couple of biggies that we agree on: money out of government AND government out of our personal lives.

The Healthcare Bill is flawed. Just look at CLASS(The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act)

Not to long ago The HHS Sec. said that IT couldn't support itself as required by the Healthcare Bill. They tried several different ways to fund it but always came out COSTING MORE then it takes in. Here is a part of the letter that Sec. Sebelius Wrote to Congress last year.

For 19 months, experts inside and outside of government have examined how HHS might implement a financially sustainable, voluntary, and self-financed long-term care insurance program under the law that meets the needs of those seeking protection for the near term and those planning for the future. The work has been groundbreaking in many ways and has taught us a great deal, much of which is captured in the attached report. But despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.

http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/letter10142011.html

Now if memory serves me right the money that CLASS was supposed to save money and was counted in the cost of the Healthcare Bill to keep it under 1 Trillion and to cut the Budget Deficit over 10 years. Well IT DON'T!! But the Obama Administration refuses to drop it from the Healthcare Bill. So the savings that is touted by the Democrats DO NOT EXIST And never have.

"We need to pass the Bill to see what is in it" Nancy Pelosi. Remember that??

malarky199

Seriously, this is why I cannot understand the rationale of the left. How in the world does forcing health care insurance companies to provide coverage to 26 year olds and to cover pre-existing conditions REDUCE the cost of health care insurance? After all, it was the increasing inaffordability of insurance that began this debate. Tort reform, however, would be a good start, but the left screams NO! to that. WhY? Because the Dems are in the pockets of of trial lawyers.

--------------------------------------------------------

First off, this has nothing to do with trial lawyers. Here is the rationale:

-Allowing parents to keep their kids who are still living with them (i.e. grad school) who are healthy wil lower the cost of healthcare. Adding more younger, healthier people to the healthcare roles will reduce the cost to offset the cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Does anyone else have doctors that are refusing to go along with the new health care bill? Id like to copy and print the letter my handicapped wife and I received just after the new year. Stating that him and his medical group would no longer accept any insurance including anything related to this bill. The entire group will accept cash and that's it. We have been part of this medical group for 17 years and now have to find a new doctor, which is proving to be harder than you would think. I had the feeling this was going to be an issue. Since my wife's medical records are 17 volumes of files the cost of transferring them to a new doctor is going to be huge. I mentioned this in a discussion and most liberals got real nasty with me. One said i was outright lying, which doesnt bother me at all. My wife has been calling around and it seems a lot of Doctors in our area (Detroit) are not all that receptive to taking new older patients. It puts us in a real bind.

Social Justice Sucks

yep raising your rates did exactly what they wanted it to do. It got you to blame the Health care reform act which is still be implemented and has not done anything to raise their costs...

the healthcare industry has to use 80% of its revenue to fund healthcare.. healthcare insurance is irate about this because now they can't stick massive amounts of money in the CEO's pockets, so they are working to get simple minded people to turn against this progression the rest of the world has already embraced

"There is a false argument being made by Ruken that you must have a marketable degree when you leave school. The primary purpose of a college degree is to teach people how to learn. A bright, educated "English" major can be taught to do and prosper in any job that requires critical thinking. One problem with today's educational system is that students are not well rounded. Ruken suggests a narrower education, which is contrary to a well-rounded, educated individual."

isint that what high school is for?

why are so many ows kids against a flat tax system and yet insist that others are not paying their "fair" share. thanks to a generous standard deduction, eitc, child credits etc; many people pay 0 or recieve a profit from the tax system. if you are paying 0 or making a profit from the tax system how can you say with a straight face that someone else is not paying their fair share?

They probably do, but that doesn't stop them from saying it's the OWS folks who are "looking for a handout..."

If you pay into a system, is it a handout? How about you leftists let us opt out of the system? The Republicans asked for that once before and you guys said no. I'd gladly give up my SS and Medicare if you didn't charge me for it. I'll take my money elsewhere. I have no issue with that.

Toasty SS is an insurance plan we paid into for in my case 42 years I wouldn't call 42 years of premiums a handout. I had no choice whether or not I paid if I didn't I would've gone to jail. Don't like paying my SS just give me back 42 years of what I paid in plus interest and we'll be quits. Unfortunatly the government can't do that they don't have it they spent it on liberal nannycare on people who never worked or paid into the system.

Toasty would...because he doesn't care about you..... only his opinion.

I'm not speaking against social security, I'm just pointing out that it's a government-forced handout to the Teabaggers that comes from my paycheck at the same time they accuse me of wanting a handout.

Toasty - You are really not saying anything once again, just the usual bashing of the other "team." This is why nothing ever gets accomplished in government these days. It is also why I am taking a very hard look at Ron Paul since he seems to be the only candidate who has this country in mind first whether or not either party agrees with his policies. I know he will have to weather the racist accusations from both sides but bring it and let's see if he is still standing in the end.

toasty its a government forced insurance policy, started by progressives, that republicans have tried to get the government out of. then the democrat fearmongers step in. you are right in one aspect- they are sending the money you pay in to someone else. this is because it is not a retirement account. the social security lockbox has been raided almost since the program came was created to pay for other programs we could not afford.

well put, but I would phrase it as populist democracies do not work instead of "democracies do not work"... its only about 5 seconds more before a tea party jumps on here and calls you a commie that hates freedom for not liking big business and pulls out that democracy quote.

"You can't do anything else with those products; no modifying, no removing encryption, no remixing, no derivative works, no parodies, no backups, nothing"

And you have a problem with that? Do you even know why patient laws were written? The Chinese seem to have the same mind set as you although they rip off American company ideas and reverse engineer them and sell them back to us at half the price!

If you have great invention patient your idea, but don't complain about not being able to steal intellectual property. As far as writing laws to prevent theft of intellectual property why do you have a problem with that?

He's not talking about patient (sic) laws. He's talking about copyright and the DMCA. And the fact may be right that the owners of these works/products don't want modifications and copies to be made. There certainly are limits to what even the DMCA and copyright does so the point is moot either way. Just because business wants something doesn't mean that the tea party is looking to hand it over. That's just hyperbole.

Patent laws, yes, I know why those were written and I know what they say. Apparently you don't.

When I pay money for something, it becomes mine. Not the property of the person who made it, not the property of the person who sold it, not the property of the person who manages the content it uses/carries/serves. It is mine. It belongs to me.

That means if I want to rip it apart and make it whistle "Dixie" while sitting on top of my computer, then that is MY RIGHT, and nobody has any right to say that I cannot do that. The law does not actually say that, because this was presumed from the start. More the pity that our forefathers failed to anticipate the stupidity of greed in the future.

I can live with voiding the warranty, as that is an entirely acceptable social and legal contract. If I break it, I'll cry into my Cheeze-doodles, but I won't take it back to the store.

However, the law does say that I may not take that torn-apart and "Dixie"-whistling doodad, slap my own mark on it and sell it as my own work. I am allowed to take inspiration from the original device in creating my own, but I may not use any aspect of said device that would be considered proprietary or original in scope; such as source code for the operating system.

I don't have any problem with the laws that have already been written, as they are more than sufficient to adjudicate the problems of our society. It really is that simple, after all? One can argue that the original writers did not foresee the Internet, but those case laws still apply, whether we are discussing wax phonograph tubes or MP3s.

What I object to are laws that remove and/or restrict what I may do with my OWN PROPERTY. I am not renting an iPod, I bought the bloody thing! It's mine to do with as I please! Apple is working to make it a FEDERAL CRIME to modify your own iPod or Mac in any way. The MPAA wants you to pay them money every time you watch your OWN DVD. The RIAA wants to reverse established law and repeal the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, making it illegal to shift your music CDs to MP3 format, and instead, you must purchase a license that will only allow you to play the CD for a limited number of times. MP3s would be required to be purchased separately, and would likewise require a separate license subject to limited playbacks.

What I object to are laws that crush innovation, suppress dissent and take a civil matter that should be handled by either a small-claims court or a lawsuit, and turn them into offenses that place free individuals at risk of PMITA PRISON for playing with their own property.

I could also argue that I object to paid shills for the copyright industry coming in here and muddying the waters, but that would mean I'm in favor of restraint of trade. Which I'm not. *toothy grin*

patent? Tracy

"That means if I want to rip it apart and make it whistle "Dixie" while sitting on top of my computer, then that is MY RIGHT, and nobody has any right to say that I cannot do that"

No one will prevent you from doing that. If however you turn around and sell a modified product then you will RIGHTLY have some legal problems.

"However, the law does say that I may not take that torn-apart and "Dixie"-whistling doodad, slap my own mark on it and sell it as my own work."

You damn right you can't do that! If I were an inventor in which I sold my patented invention to a company and I found out that you were modifying my invention and selling it as your own I would be legally up your ass also.

"such as source code for the operating system."

Create you own source code and/or operating system.

"Apple is working to make it a FEDERAL CRIME to modify your own iPod or Mac in any way."

If you attempt to sell modified versions absolutely! Apple is NOT going to sue you if you take you personal iPod and modify it for YOURSELF.

"The MPAA wants you to pay them money every time you watch your OWN DVD."

Now that is bogus.

Right on, IonOtter!

"Apple is NOT going to sue you if you take you personal iPod and modify it for YOURSELF."

Quite correct-for the moment. As I said, Apple and other companies are working to make it a crime. At the moment, modding your own device has been ruled as not a crime in of itself, unless you violate the DMCA provisions regarding device encryption. Bypassing an encryption system to gain access to the operating system or software was considered a crime-not a civil infraction mind you, but an actual crime-but that has been clarified somewhat as of July 26, 2010.

However, there are several factors at play here:

1. Powerful companies such as Sony, Apple, the MPAA and RIAA are trying to change that.

2. It's not how much justice you can get, it's how much justice you can afford.

If I have an unlimited budget, I can sue you for pretty much anything I want, so long as it sounds reasonable to a judge. So while I may not be able to effectively sue you for wearing clothes that clash with the color of my product, I can claim that you violated my patents or user agreements by altering the device in question.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, and until there is established case law regarding the situation, then it will proceed to the court. (aka Legal Precedent)

To whit, most people cannot afford to set a legal precedent, therefore most people cave in, rather than expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal cases that can simply be appealed until their money is gone.

"Quite correct-for the moment. As I said, Apple and other companies are working to make it a crime"

Laws have to be enforceable. How would this particular one be enforced if it were to pass? I highly doubt that any court is going uphold a law like that and Apple would receive too much bad PR press if they were to pursue it.

See below as an example....

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/us-government-jailbreaking-iphone-legal/story?id=11254253

Yes your iPhone warranty from Apple might be void but you can run unauthorized apps on your phone.

IonOtter: "More the pity that our forefathers failed to foresee the stupidity of greed in the future."

AMEN! If they only knew...

sounds more like your just irritated you can run pirated apps because you were too cheap to buy them and support their creaters. if you dont want people to push for laws that protect their property from you stealing it then dont steal it and force the issue to begin with. you are not entitled to someone elses work because you can simply copy it

Uh, David? TARP was signed in by Bush...

Uh, David? TARP was signed in by Bush...

I love it when the facts hit the boards.

Toasty and Ruk,

The fact that TARP was signed by Bush does not make David's premise any less valid. He didn't say anything about who singed the piece a crap legislation - just that it did bail out the very scumbags that had put the hole in the boat in the first place.

Just saying . . .

Hate to break this too you Toasty but Bush was a Lame Duck President by then and the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Bush actully Vetoed the First TARP bill because he didint feel there was enough Protections to make sure the American Public was paid back.

You can thank Bush for the Fact that most of the TARP Money was paid back. Never the less, the Big banks Gambled, WE bailed there Asses out, and now they are going to profit Yet again from this morguage Fiasco.

Its time you all put the Tea and Kool-aid down and Wake up. The Democrats and Republicans are birds of a Feather, they flock together, and the American Taxpayers are the Ones suffering.

P.S. You may want to Look at the History of the Gramm-Leach- Blily bill that overtuned the Glass-Steagul Act so that you can se that it was signed into Law by Bill Clinton and passed 362-57 in the House and 80-9 in the Senate. You might also want to ask Dodd and Frank why the lied about Fannie and Freddie being financialy sound when in 2003 people were trying to raise the alarm.

David - Frank came back a year or two later, YEARS BEFORE the collapse and began to raise the alarm as well after the 2003 statement. You seem to like to ignore his later actions when HE found out about the issues and instead point to when he believed it was still solvent (and hell it might have been back in 2003, that was 8 years ago and 6 before the whole thing blew up).

You nailed a lot of other stuff, it was a giant scam paid for by the banks. I definently wouldn't be speaking out against the democrats souly on this. Your original post sounded like you completely blamed the dems and Obama (as many ignorant people come on here and yell about because they don't know that Bush signed it), so I can see why you got attacked, but you are speaking out against the whole corrupt system.

Blocking the Consumer Protection Bureau and trying to remove those new regulations are what the GOP is doing right now headlined by the tea party and it pisses me off that they are doing that YEARS after a major collapse because we lacked them.

Your right Hugin. We could sit here and argue who's to blaim for this or that and fall into that same old quagmire of divisiveness. Or we can set aside our differences and try to work together.

I'm willing to try the latter. I believe both parties are equally responsible for the mess the U.S. is in and share the blame equally.

Maybe the First step Is for Both sides to admit there responsibilty and that the Two party system is broken and stop trying to defend or persecute one side or the other when they are both to blaim.

That is why the Tea Party and OWS croweds rose because they are tired of this and yet look at the effort we put into attacking those two groups.

Could it possibly be because were afraid if the Two Party system ended and we had a third or fourth party we would actually have to think about who to vote for instead of just voting Dem or Rep?

Maybe the biggest problem in America is the people and there complacency to allow two political parties to rule our country.

UHHH. The Banks paid about 90% of the TRAP funds back Plus 5% interest. That money was supposed to have been used to eliminate the Deficit that it created. But we all know that the TARP Funds vanished. How were they spent? Why didn't the Obama Administration follow the TARP Law?? BTW most of the TARP money that is still outstanding went to local and regional banks. You may also be surprised that the large majority of the Banks DID NOT want or need the TARP Funds. They were forced to take it to cover up the identities of the Banks who actually needed the TARP Funds.

@Slodon, the TARP money that was supposed to be used to reduce the deficit went back into the general money pot that Congress steals from. For all we know, it was used to extend the Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts). But hey, when Iraq pays us back for their liberation, we should be good.

hypocrisy

But didn't the Democrats write the TARP Bill in 2008? Didn't Obama and the Democrats follow their own Law?? Why didn't the TARP Funds pay off its deficit? What programs spent those funds? Where is the transparency??

right on! the more money government gets it just waste it anyway. how has the progressive

movement been working for the last decades? why isn't any of these so called poor people

moving out of the projects and getting off welfare? cause that's the liberal demo voters!

liberal demos are the biggest hypocrites in the world making themselves rich in office! stop

giving crap for free to people who don't deserve it and they will have to work! stop the corruption

and the big government big union bailouts payoffs stimulus green technology push and let the

consumer decide what they want and how to spend their money. NOBOMBO or liberals 2012!~

Once again Toasty you are blaming the other "team" when are you going to realize Bush & Obama are on the same team? It is time to form a new "league" that really is for the majority of American's, you repub & demo player's are old news. The world has shrunk and it is a new game so if you want to play you better learn the new rules and quit the old blame game. Oh, and Go Niner's!

@

JM-1992894

Are you serious. You think we should pull the plug on the terminally ill to save money ???

this is exactly what is wrong with capitalism and people like you... decisions are made based on economic outcome, not on their humane outcome.

Money and capitalism will be the downfall of humanity. Everythign is done and decided on based on profit, not what is best for society, and humanity in general

Uhhh FAnnie and Freddie bundling foreclosed homes and selling them to investors? Isn't thier bundling of bad mortages they forced banks to give out, what started this downhill spiral of our economy? What is this, round two Can some one in Washington grow a brain and stop this train headed for the cliff?

@Slodon - where is the transparency for the Iraq war funds? Why is it okay to piss away trillions on Muslim Iraqis, but completely wrong to help the middle class in the U.S.? Why do you hate the U.S.? Both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress wrote TARP and W. signed it into law to help his billionaire banker buddys from suffering the down side of the free market. But hey, privatize the gains and socialize the losses right? Sorry, but as a Christian I can never ever vote for a Republican.

Ruken, God help us if the business market is the only arbiter of what's important or what talents have value. Great art or music would be wasted and ignored, and human history would never have surpassed animal dog-eat-dog survival.

IMO that's one of the problems we have right now, and the big reason we need to STOP worshipping "The Market" and material wealth. We at least WERE much better than that. That we are no longer, is the proof it's NOT because we aren't materialistic ENOUGH.

Hypocrisy

Just look up Overseas Contingency Bills. There is where the funding is at. By the way the Democrats could have stopped the Funding any time they wanted in 2007 2008 2009 and 2010. WHY DIDN'T THEY???

@Slodon - So....you are against funding the war? Do you not support W's war on Iraq? Don't you support our troops? Why aren't you a patriot? Remember 9/11? Also, how are we going to pay these war bills? Deficit spending, increased taxes, or magical tax cuts that somehow will bring in more money this time despite what has happened in the past?

or "The Freedom Party"

Get back, get back, get back to where we once belonged...the Constituion,...the Bill of Rights...and the Declaration of Independence...Get Back America...

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave

Less government means more freedom for you and me to do as we please.

Nominate Dr Ron Paul for President of the United States of America.

The road to PEACE is paved with FREEDOM.

Right on!

Oath Keepers has launched a national effort to recall (or remove by any other lawful means) all of the oath breaking members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, who voted for the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 (NDAA), which contains provisions that authorize indefinite military detention and trial by military commission of "any person" - including U.S. citizens and lawful residents - upon the mere say-so of the President or one of his subordinates in the Executive Branch, such as within the Department of Defense or CIA.

Also, support H.R. 3702 — Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 sponsored by Rep. John Garamendi (D-Ca.) and S. 2003 — Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.).

The political machine of a two party system depends on people staying at odds even when they agree. The profit/power motive only helps politicians ensure this gap grows wider and wider.

You would prefer to maintin the status Quo, the Two party system, Democrats and Republicans controlling everything, the same two groups that have gotten the county to this point?

Actually, you are a victim of "false balance" of the media.

"Both" parties did not get us into the economic mess we are in. If you look carefully at the facts, you will notice that only one party consistently worked to get us in the predicament we are in today.

Harbinger, where did you get these so called facts? I would like to know.

I get my facts anyplace but FOX.

So should you!

Some truth to this!

Which do you prefer ? Anarchy or Oligarchy ??

There is pressure but no amount of pressure is going to force the hands of those that really have the say in this matter. Not to mention the numbers of people who are so invested in their own political party that they refuse to find fault in them.

Not until we get over treating politics like some kind of sports team loyalty fetish will we get people to really get down to business and work toward common goals.

East Coast I agree. Perhaps we should start by insisting that a rep to congress agree to a two term limit, with a 5 year space after the last term is served before they can run for the same office again. It's also time we expect loyalty to us the people not some special interest group thats funding the congress persons re election or life style.