Occupy Protests

[Crysknife]

It's a stupid vote and a ploy. Republivans know it won't pass and they don't want it to pass. Let's not forget who started deficit spending. Republicans have never been about fiscal responsability. But now they can point to the American people and say see, look at those democrats. They are the bad ones! Why do you think cutting govt. In half will be good for the economy right now? There is plenty of money in this country. It's just being boarded and not getting to where it should. But that's trickle down economics for you.

It all started with $75 million in loans made to the new United States of America during the Revolutionary War, and thus began the first American budget deficit. We managed to pay it back rather quickly and enjoyed several years of budget surpluses but the War of 1812 forced borrowing and once again we were back in debt—big wars tied to big deficits would be a recurring theme over the next 200 years. There’s a lot of blame thrown around these days, as Congressional leaders and President Obama struggle to reach a deal on raising the debt ceiling, to enable more borrowing, and chip away at a annual budget deficit that is over $14.5 trillion. But the tough truth is that deficits and debt are bipartisan phenomena to which almost every president, no matter their party or ideological affiliation, has contributed. The Civil War pushed the national debt into the unheard of $3 billion range; after World War I public debt was up to $25.5 billion; the New Deal and World War II resulted in one of the first sizable explosions in debt, up to $260 billion by 1950. Throw in LBJ’s Grand Society, the Vietnam War, the defense build up against the Soviet Union, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sweeping tax cuts and a brutal recession, and we find ourselves mired in this current mess.

So break out the calculators and the history books as we trace the growth of American debt, which has its roots in the very birth of the country. As Obama and Boehner, Democrats and Republicans level blame at each other for getting us into deep deficits and not doing enough to get us out, the truth is there’s 235 years worth of blame to pass around to everyone.

and for the hoarding fallacy... First:



Second:
Where are they hoarding it, in mattresses? No, they keep it in in Banks and other investments, who are loaning it, to make money.

Hey, where was that video when the Republicans were starting two wars, and passing huge drug programs? Oh, Bush was handed a surplus so we could start to pay down the debt....a surplus! Bush said it was irresposible to have a surplus so he handed it to the rich. We all know that it will take cuts and tax increases to get us out of the mess. There is only one side willing to do both.

[Crysknife]

Reagan had 4 times the deficit spending as Carter in Reagan's first term. He had 5 times the second. Bush had 4 times the spending of Reagan's first term in both of his!

[Apjak]

Hey, where was that video when the Republicans were starting two wars, and passing huge drug programs? Oh, Bush was handed a surplus so we could start to pay down the debt....a surplus! Bush said it was irresposible to have a surplus so he handed it to the rich. We all know that it will take cuts and tax increases to get us out of the mess. There is only one side willing to do both.

Don't get me wrong, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!! I just posted that video because the facts are accurate, soaking the rich, indeed eating the rich won't do a god-damned thing if we don't get spending under control. The root of the problem is that politicians will spend every dime they take in and as much more as they think they can get away with. Hell it's not their money, but they can use it to buy votes and favors, use it to keep interest rates low and then guarantee private loans, use it to "create" jobs that the private sector isn't willing to take a risk on and then pay 10 bureaus to oversee that job, use it to prop up dictatorships, use it to put american soldiers in the back yard of people who attacked america simply to attack americans.

Then we have people camping out in front of corporate america, because they're the thieves? Yes, they're greedy. Yes, greed is despicable, but if they want a dime of my money they have to convince someone to give it to them. They have to create something I want, at a price I'm willing to pay, or NO DEAL. Now, it is fucked up that there are those businessmen who convinced Uncle Sam to give them my money, because they're too big to fail? Capitalism only works if there is "Profit and Loss".

So who do we blame in this unholy union...

If customers are dissatisfied with a bank on wall street, they can take their deposits and loans elsewhere, but you can't jut withhold your money from the government. You can't use alternate currency or stop paying your taxes without them physically punishing you. We The People don't have to let anyone have that power over us, but we have. So a fair (albeit small) share goes to me, and the other voters.

(I'm not a democrat either. I consistently vote Libertarian. Guns, Drugs, and Free Trade! Which probably let's enough of you write me off as an idiot without actually addressing the reasons I came to think this way.)

[Nekhrun]

I've been donating pizza to the Occupy Movement for months now.

[Freakzilla]

Democrats vote overwhelmingly against balancing the budget because of fears that they would have to cut social programs.

Actually we are against a balanced budget because we are smart enough to know that a balanced federal budget is a stupid idea.

Why?

[Apjak]

leeway in an emergency

which never gets given back

[Freakzilla]

The reason democrats don't want a balanced budget is because they would have to give up all the welfare programs we can't afford anyway.

[Omphalos]

Democrats vote overwhelmingly against balancing the budget because of fears that they would have to cut social programs.

Actually we are against a balanced budget because we are smart enough to know that a balanced federal budget is a stupid idea.

Why?

Because a balanced budget is a form of balancing credits and debits that often takes place after expenditures are undertaken; it's a form of trying to close the barn doer after all the animals have gotten out. States can get away with it by playing voo-doo with their budgets and getting creative with credits to balance cost overruns. In the states world the stakes just aren't that big, especially for smaller states. But the risk is much different as you scale economies up.

Federal spending is out of control, I'll grant you that. But the real world effect of requiring a balanced budget could create absolute chaos. Imagine the amount of property that the Feds would have to sell off to the highest bidder each year that they spend, for example, $2 trillion more than they allowed for. It'd be a fucking fire sale to the goddam Chinese. Plus the graft that would be generated as Congress tries to cover its ass would put all past graft to absolute shame. the fact of the matter is that a balanced budget requirement really does nothing to control expenses in the real world. It only creates expectations that are often too difficult in the real world for entities as big as the Feds to live up to.

The other real fact is that debt financing works as long as debt is kept to a small share of GDP, and probably the only control dynamic enough for e Feds to get shit done and remain as transparent as it does now.

[Nekhrun]

How about balancing it by taking tax rates back to what Reagan wanted?

[Omphalos]

How about balancing it by taking tax rates back to what Reagan wanted?

I have no problem with tryin got balance the budget. I have a major problem with a rule or amendment that requires it.

[Nekhrun]

How about balancing it by taking tax rates back to what Reagan wanted?

I have no problem with tryin got balance the budget. I have a major problem with a rule or amendment that requires it.

Agreed.

[Freakzilla]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Video of a tense standoff between police and Occupy demonstrators at the University of California, Davis shows an officer using pepper spray on a group of protesters who appear to be sitting passively on the ground with their arms interlocked.
The video — posted on YouTube — was shot Friday as police moved in on more than a dozen tents erected on campus and arrested 10 people, nine of them students.
In the video, the officer displays a bottle before spraying its contents on the seated protesters in a sweeping motion while walking back and forth. Most of the protesters have their heads down, but at least one is hit in the face.
Some members of a crowd gathered at the scene scream and cry out. The crowd then chants, "Shame on You," as the protesters on the ground are led away. The officers retreat minutes later with helmets on and batons drawn.
It's not clear from the video what agency the officer who used the pepper spray represents. Officers from UC Davis and other UC campuses as well as the city of Davis responded to the protest, according to Annette Spicuzza, UC Davis police chief. Davis is about 80 miles north of San Francisco.
Karen Nikos, a university spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that she expects to have comment on the incident later Saturday morning.
Spicuzza told the Sacramento Bee (http://bit.ly/sKoP5T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. Protesters were warned repeatedly beforehand that force would be used if they didn't move, she said.
"There was no way out of that circle," Spicuzza said. "They were cutting the officers off from their support. It's a very volatile situation."
The tents went up on Thursday, and protesters were apparently warned on Friday morning that they had until 3 p.m. to take them down or they would be removed.

http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-peppe ... 59159.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DuneFishUK]

Occupy Wall Street finally gets a face–and it’s bloody

He's just doing the Shouty McHeadwound...

[SandRider]

[SandRider]

[Freakzilla]

Thanks, Mr Sulu.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Thanks, Mr Sulu.

[Freakzilla]

Conservative, liberal... don't EVER lose your sense of humor.

[SandRider]

trust me, it was funny ...

[Lundse]

Maybe I am being obtuse but I don't see this protest as being very effective. They seem unorganized and can't even clearly articulate what they're protesting. It's difficult for me to take them seriously, from the videos I've seen of them online and in the media.

They are protesting the system. They are protesting against the fact that in the current capitalism/democratic system, capitalism controls democracy.

They do not have one simple demand. They do not have one simple solution.

This does not make them vague, inarticulate or (necessarily, this remains to be seen) ineffective.

[Freakzilla]

[Freakzilla]

[Apjak]

[Freakzilla]

[Freakzilla]