Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

Originally Posted by Brick Top
How much did the $529 million loan that went to build electric cars in Finland, not in the U.S. even though the funds were part of Obama's stimulus package, that Vice President Joe Biden claimed was a bright new path to thousands of American jobs, save you?

UncleBuck said:
cite it

Will the following articles suffice?

No joke, our money going to Finland

"Outta' My Mind on a Saturday Moanin'"
Even a guy as bright (no pun intended) as Thomas Edison would be shocked (again no pun intended … and that really would be a Ben Franklin joke anyway) to find that his life-changing invention 132 years ago (yesterday), would be the hot potato, political line in the sand it is today. For him, it was just the first workable electric light bulb.
Tomorrow marks the 10th anniversary of another life-changing technology: the iPod's introduction. Oh, it's also mother-in-law day (insert joke here, if applicable).
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama will make his fourth visit to Jay Leno's "Tonight Show." (Insert several jokes here.)
Are you kidding me? Our president gave our hard-earned money to Henrik Fisker to build his politically correct $97,000 electric sports car? You know, the $529 million loan that Vice President Joe Biden claimed was a bright new path to thousands of American jobs. Two years later, only 500 jobs have been created — at a cost of about $1.1 million per job. But wait, it gets better, well actually, worse. Much worse.
Those 500 great American jobs are in Finland.
I'm not done.
ABC network chief investigative reporter Brian Ross tells me Mr. Fisker told him: "There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle. They don't exist here."
Apparently he's never heard of Detroit and didn't know we have a few available empty auto plants in "move-in" condition. He apparently didn't know we have a "few" well-trained, excellent autoworkers available, too.
And finally, as if he hadn't spread enough salt into our wounds, Mr. Fisker finished with: "We're not in the business of failing; we're in the business of winning. So we make the right decision for the business. That's why we went to Finland."
Why didn't he get the $529 million from Finland then? Maybe he and his cars should just stay there, after he pays us back.
Oh, that's my final reference to jokes.
And I don't feel much like laughing right now.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20111022/OPINION03/110220314/No-joke--our-money-going-to-Finland#ixzz1bZA62mfU

http://detnews.com/article/20111022/OPINION03/110220314/1008/opinion01/No-joke--our-money-going-to-Finland

Originally Posted by Brick Top
Did you save a great deal from the roughly $5 billion home weatherization program that has been found to be rife with waste and fraud?

i know people that benefitted. they save money and use less oil/gas now.

Really? How many? A few thousand or so?

Energy Dept. weatherization programs rife with waste, fraud, inspector general audits show

Published: 12:10 AM 09/21/2011 | Updated: 6:21 PM 09/21/2011

By Amanda Carey

http://twitter.com/AmandaCarey1

inShare3

Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama defended the weatherization portion of the stimulus bill in a February 2009 CBS interview, saying it would immediately put people back to work, reduce energy costs and lay the groundwork for future energy independence.
“What would be a more effective stimulus package than that?” said Obama at the time. “That’s exactly the kind of program that we should be funding.”
In total, the stimulus program allocated about $5 billion to the cause of home weatherization, outfitting homes with the latest green technology in order to reduce energy prices.
It’s now three years later, and it appears the weatherization program has gone down a road of waste, fraud and abuse.
Take Illinois, Obama’s home state, as an example.
Illinois’ share of the weatherization program in 2009 was $242 million over three years, with a goal of weatherizing 27,000 homes for $9,000 each. The program is overseen by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO), along with 35 other local agencies. Roughly half of the operations were run through the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County.
Despite the generous weatherization stimulus, the Illinois legislature decided to create its own, state-run program. Thus, in 2009, the Urban Weatherization Initiative was created, with $425 million to spend over five years.
The state program is also run through the DCEO within the newly-created Office of Urban Assistance. (RELATED: Solyndra execs to plead Fifth in hearing)
But in October 2010, Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General at the Department of Energy, issued a scathing report on Illinois’ weatherization program funded with stimulus dollars.
Among his findings were that 14 out of 15 “weatherized” homes failed final inspection because of poor workmanship and 12 out of 15 homes contained substandard work that could have “resulted in significant property damage or injury to the homeowners.”
But Friedman’s report didn’t stop there.
In one weatherized home, 11 out of 14 items the weatherization contractor installed failed inspection. Another home had an improperly installed exhaust system that turned out to be a potential fire hazard.
The audit also found that the number of gas leaks discovered was “alarming.”
Worst still, Friedman reported that contractors hired to weatherize homes charged homeowners prices significantly higher than market value for the items they installed.
“For example, CEDA’s published prices for smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, and thermostats ranged from about 120 percent to 200 percent over the average retail price,” reads the audit report. “Neither CEDA nor State officials could justify such large mark-ups on materials.”
The IG’s audit also turned up erroneous billing practices, where contractors would over-charge for services that were never carried out.
“Additionally, a contractor had installed one carbon monoxide detector, but had billed CEDA for 3; another contractor had installed 12 light bulbs, but had billed CEDA for 20; and, yet another had failed to install a gas shut-off valve, but had billed for the work. In addition, a contractor had billed for almost four times the amount of drywall actually installed,” reads the report.
When contacted by TheDC, a DOE spokesperson Bill Gibbons said, “The weatherization programs are creating thousands of jobs, helping families save money, and deploying new clean energy technologies in local communities around the country.”
“We always expected that it would take some time to get these programs fully up and running in the beginning, but we are on track to significantly exceed the 600,000 home goal set for the program,” Gibbons added. “The Department takes any reported case of abuse or poor performance very seriously, but these have been the exception rather than the rule and we have taken aggressive actions to address the issues and hold those responsible accountable.”
Still, one member of the advisory board overseeing the state program, Republican state Sen. Dan Duffy, resigned from the non-voting position in March 2011 because he so incensed at what he saw to be an obvious waste of taxpayer money
“The more questions I asked, the more I was told ‘Dan, you don’t really have a vote,’” Duffy told TheDC.
“I guess I don’t understand, when the state of Illinois literally cannot pay its bills and is going bankrupt, is this really the best use of money?” Duffy added. “I don’t care if its state or federal. Why are we spending millions of dollars with absolutely no credibility of how the spend that money?”
The story of Illinois’ weatherization program, however, doesn’t stop there.
The state-run program is being promoted by four separate public relations firms. Two of those firms have close ties to the Obama administration.
One of the firms, Jascula-Terman and Associates, Inc. of Chicago is headed by Chairman and CEO Rick Jascula; and President and CFO Jim Terman*. In 2008, they provided pro bono services to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at the request of Obama’s close friend and adviser David Axelrod.
In 2010 former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went to Jascula-Terman for help during his mayoral campaign.
The DCEO also hired Avis Lavelle, of A. Lavelle Consulting, to do press work for the program. A former press secretary for Mayor Richard Daley, Lavelle is considered to be a close friend of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett. She did not return TheDC’s request for comment.
But Illinois isn’t the only state that struggled with its weatherization program. Delaware suspended its program altogether after only nine months when it became apparent the fraud and mismanagement was getting out of control.
A state audit in Tennessee, which received more than $100 million in stimulus funds for weatherization, also found rampant waste and abuse. The 260-page report uncovered problems very similar to those in Illinois: work was done improperly and funds went to homeowners not even eligible for the program.
Illinois, Delaware and Tennessee are only three examples, but numerous reports show the mismanagement is widespread throughout then entire nationwide program.
“It was a set up for failure,” Duffy told TheDC.
*Editor’s note: Payment information has been removed.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/21/energy-dept-weatherization-programs-rife-with-waste-fraud-inspector-general-audits-show/#ixzz1bZC9lsmP

September 21, 2011

Obama's Chicago pals get rich off of his fraud-ridden weatherization programs

Ed Lasky
The rest of America is just beginning to learn how Cook County politics works. Barack Obama learned his lessons well. He said as much when he let slip his real views: that politics is about "rewarding friends" and "punishing enemies."
As president, Obama seems to be busy "rewarding" his home town pals at taxpayer expense. The giant slush fund known as the "stimulus" has been a rich source of payoffs that extend far beyond mega donors such as George Kaiser and his Solyndra investment. The stimulus fund has also been a honey pot to send money to personal pals of Barack and Michelle.
One way he has found to funnel money to friends is through the fraud and waste-ridden weatherization program. This was a Van Jones approved program to help employment in minority communities. People would be hired from those communities to weatherize homes in poorer communities.
The program has been, surprise, a big loser for taxpayers. But for Obama's pals back in Chicago. Not so-they came out winners.
Amanda Carey reports at the Daily Caller:

...in October 2010, Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General at the Department of Energy, issued a scathing report on Illinois' weatherization program funded with stimulus dollars.
Among his findings were that 14 out of 15 "weatherized" homes failed final inspection because of poor workmanship and 12 out of 15 homes contained substandard work that could have "resulted in significant property damage or injury to the homeowners."

The Inspector General report has a litany of expensive failures and botched jobs-substituting cheaper material than listed in the contract, dangerous practices leaving people exposed to possible risks to their lives, shoddy work and the like. One Republican who signed onto the group formed to monitor the program resigned in disgust when his views regarding the abuses were ignored by the rest of the panel.
But what is most interesting is the pinpointing of those who benefited from this waste and fraud-ridden program.

The state-run program is being promoted by four separate public relations firms. Two of those firms have close ties to the Obama administration.
According to state records, DCEO has been paying Jascula-Terman and Associates, Inc. of Chicago more than $700,000 a year to promote the program. The firm is headed by Chairman and CEO Rick Jascula; and President and CFO Jim Terman. In 2008, they provided pro bono services to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at the request of Obama's close friend and adviser David Axelrod.
In 2010 former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went to Jascula-Terman for help during his mayoral campaign.
The DCEO also hired Avis Lavelle, of A. Lavelle Consulting, to do press work for the program. A former press secretary for Mayor Richard Daley, Lavelle is considered to be a close friend of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett. She did not return TheDC's request for comment.

Those "pro-bono" services were offered to Jeremiah Wright -- the anti-American, anti-white, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic friend and inspiration for Barack Obama -- apparently were not so "pro-bono" after all. The firm seems to have been well-rewarded with taxpayer funds. Apparently when Obama finally was forced to say sayonara to Wright when Wright became a political problem, Team Obama was looking out for him.
Wright was being taken care via David Axlerod, Obama's campaign guru at the time. Perhaps there was a quid pro quo offer made to Wright: lay low until the campaign is over and you will receive "free" public relations help to burnish your image.
This is how Cook County works. IOUs may take a respectable while to be paid off to avoid too many questions. But the "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" modus operandi still rules in politics. Debts are paid back -- with taxpayer funds. The payback may not be in brown envelopes in alleys or bars anymore but they still take place.
Of course it is nice to see that Michelle Obama's and Valerie Jarrett's gal pal, Avis Lavelle, has also been the beneficiary of our dollars. Maybe the three of them can now enjoy more meals at Spiaggia, the luxe Chicago restaurant that the Obamas consider suitable for them when they fly into town on Air Force One.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/obamas_chicago_pals_get_rich_off_of_his_fraud-ridden_weatherization_programs.html

Fraud Rampant in Obama Weatherization Program

Cheryl K. Chumley –

Cheryl K. Chumley –

July 11, 2011

A $5 billion plan pushed by President Barack Obama to help lower-income homeowners reduce their energy bills is rife with mismanagement, waste, and fraud, a government audit has found.
Widespread Problems
A recently released audit by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General found weatherization officials disregarded federal program rules, gave special treatment to family members who were accepted into the program, and performed subpar work on homes in some states.
“We found problems in the areas of weatherization workmanship, financial management, prioritization of applicants for weatherization services and compliance with laws and regulations,” DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman wrote in a statement accompanying the audit. “Unless the weaknesses identified in this report are addressed … the risks of fraud, waste and abuse remain at unacceptable levels.”
Numerous States Involved
The weatherization program began decades ago. But Obama spent stimulus funds—$5 billion of them—to ramp up weatherization efforts while selling the public on his green jobs stimulus plan. Fraud, however, has been widespread under the ramped-up program.
In Delaware, for example, inspectors found problems with hundreds of home repairs and retrofits. Repairs to improperly retrofitted homes could cost Delaware taxpayers $7.5 million, according to some estimates, and that’s more than half of the entire federal stimulus package the state received in 2009.
The report found other states have also experienced fraud and waste in the program, including Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, and New Jersey.
Auditors are also looking at West Virginia. In 2009, the state received $38 million for weatherization efforts. Yet only 1,800 of 3,500 homes targeted for upgrades, repairs, and retrofits have received the necessary work.
Fraud Not a Surprise
Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says the reports of waste and fraud in the weatherization program come as no surprise.
“This isn’t uncommon,” Burnett said. “That’s the nature of government programs whenever there are appropriations involved. Once government gets in the business of telling us what products to use and subsidizing those products, standard accounting practices go out the window.”
Common sense and fiscal responsibility would put the entire weatherization program on hold, at least to allow the economy time to improve, he said.
“One would think in a time of fiscal austerity this would be one of the programs that go by the wayside real quick,” Burnett said. “I’ll wager that many of the upgrades took place on people’s houses who could afford it without the subsidy. That’s what happened with solar subsidies.… Programs like this are generally welfare for the well-to-do and moderately well-to-do.”
Cheryl K. Chumley ([email protected]) writes from northern Virginia.

but to answer you, how many people went back to work building that sidewalk to a ditch? would you rather have them unemployed instead?

So you honestly believe that the same amount of money, if it had to be spent, could not been more wisely spent, and spent in a way that would bring a much better return and that would be far more beneficial to taxpayers than to build a sidewalk that goes to a ditch and stops?

what about the ants? if they discover a way to eradicate a bad species or to use another species for good purposes, don't you think that might save more than $1.9 million in crop losses somewhere down the road? and people were put to work doing this research, which creates demand in the economy. OH NO!

"...if they discover... "If." ... "IF" ....... "If" my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. "If" the stimulus money needed to be spent is should not have been gambled on an "if." It should have been spent on something with real certainty of a good return coming from it.

The examples I used were a perfect illustration of the sheer insanity of Keynesian economics. When an investor invests their own money they assess risk and return and if the risk is to high and the return is to low, they do not invest. These Keynesian clowns in government do not do that. They pick terrible places to throw money into. They take far to much risk and see little to no return, and often times a loss. What was it, $535 MILLION that was wasted on Solyndra? Why did Solyndra need taxpayer dollars? Because there were not enough stupid private investors willing to take a gamble so risky that on something that was an almost 100% certainty to fail. But between the Keynesians running things now wrongly thinking that any spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs and that some political payback was required the taxpayers ended up being bent over and impregnated to the tune of $535 MILLION.

How many U.S. jobs were created by the stimulus funds that went to build electric cars in Finland?

the economy is stable now. after the recession we went through, to expect much more betrays a lack of historical perspective which an old timer like you often likes to brag about having.

If you call the economy stable, you're insane. There is still a good chance that there will be a double-dip recession. And while you think this old guy doesn't know much, one thing this guy knows is that when compared to other recessions the recovery is far behind where it should be at this time. At least where it could have been if it had been handled properly.

Something else is, you may try to find comfort in what you inaccurately claim to be a stable economy, but if you look at what Obama claimed his boondoggle stimulus would do, keep unemployment under 8%, it is clear that on that alone Obama's boondoggle stimulus failed.

Americans know that Obama's boondoggle stimulus plan failed. This is from July. The percentage of those who are stupid enough to believe it helped has not improved, and if anything it has gotten worse.

Obama’s People Admit Stimulus Failed Miserably In Creating Jobs

by Vincent Ferrari Posted on July 4, 2011

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.
Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
Say what you want, spin it any way you want. The simple fact is that these are Obama’s hand-picked people saying this, so you can’t blame politics.
Face it. The “did the stimulus work?” question has been answered. It’s a clear and resounding “No, it did not.”

http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2011/07/04/obamas-people-admit-stimulus-failed-miserably-in-creating-jobs/

and for your edification, i invested my thousands of dollars of tax breaks into big fancy lights and loud fans, and while i am not rolling in the dough, i am certainly as happy as i have ever been.

Good for you!

you should copy and paste something else that you can't defend without further copy and pastes.

There is no need for me to defend something that defends itself.

*BUDS · Oct 22, 2011

Brick Top said:
I do not know what the figures are now, but in 2004 the bottom 50% of wage earners earned 13% of wages, not about 1% as you stated. I highly doubt it has dropped by 12% since then, in spite of Obama's efforts to make that happen. That bottom 50% of wage earners paid a whopping 3% of all federally collected tax revenues leaving 97% of all federally collected tax revenues

to be paid by the upper 50% wage earners.

Click to expand...

What do the Occupy Wall Street imbeciles want, the top 50% of wage earners to pay 100% of all federally collected tax revenues? Or maybe the top 25% of wage earners to pay 100% of all federally collected tax revenues? Or maybe the to 10% or 5% or 1% of wage earners to pay 100% of all federally collected tax revenues?

If the little clown shoe Occupy Wall Street morons would be able to get the tax policies they want enacted, enacted, federally collected tax revenues would plummet and the government would have less taxpayer dollars to waste and the already faltering economy would get worse and possibly collapse.

"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."

Sir Winston Churchill

I
Doesnt that show you how big the gap is between rich and poor and this is why the USA is a collapsing empire,never to recover because of people like you. Stop talking through your pocket you fuckin wanker and sticking up for your rich wanker mates, no one wants to hear it, there are a lot of good people who havnt got enough money to feed thier kids and your saying 200,000 a year "isnt rich". By the way how much fed revenue was illegally lost to tax havens by the greedy rich? Pull your head in,no one wants to know about you retiring at 49 .
To answer the Q ,YES half of america should be down there.

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

'Tax haven' there is no such thing..Define it please, how do I get involved?

Im poor, I support occupy also but I believe 'tax havens' would be illegal. Pretty sure thats a myth.

kaeahabio · Oct 22, 2011

The wealthy in this country have written their own laws, not to mention the top 1% have 40% of all wealth, and the top 20% have 85% of all wealth. The 400 richest americans are worth what the bottom 150 million are worth, we have wealth inequality that rivals uganda and somalia, and some ignorant misinformed fools thinks thats just great. I grew up when we could get my comfortably on my fathers income, as we grew older my mother choose to go to school as it became tougher to get by, this was after Reagan spent more than every president before him combined, taking the USA from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor, not to mention the Iran Contra affair, follow that up by the good years under Clinton (who had surpluses leaving office thanks to the omnibus bill of 93 in which no republicans supported, and that was just a 4% hike on the most wealthy), then W not only pushed home ownership, destroyed meaningful regulation, 2 unfunded wars, accting gimmicks, and huge expanisions of govt thru Homeland Sec, and Medicare part d, and its not hard to understand why this country is in the shape it is. To add to all that the citizens united case has allowed massives amounts of money into politics, thanks to a decision that fell on party lines- 5 conservatives, and you start to get the idea. Reagan thru the fairness doctrine repeal has allowed conservative media along with the corporate media to lie and misinform the public for 30 years. Most people support the occupy movement, they might not know it, just like most Red states are welfare states that ironically bitch about the debt and lazy losers who wont find a job. Most conservatives are Democrats, just too misinformed to know!

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

*BUDS said:
Doesnt that show you how big the gap is between rich and poor and this is why the USA is a collapsing empire,never to recover because of people like you. Stop talking through your pocket you fuckin wanker and sticking up for your rich wanker mates, no one wants to hear it, there are a lot of good people who havnt got enough money to feed thier kids and your saying 200,000 a year "isnt rich". By the way how much fed revenue was illegally lost to tax havens by the greedy rich? Pull your head in,no one wants to know that your rich.

I have never once used the word rich in reference to myself. I only say that I am quite comfortable. After that, however much cash and investments/investment income I have is no one's business.

Someone with an income of $200,000.00 per year is not rich. If you earned $200,000.00 next year it would be a very good yearly income. But if at the end of the year would you actually be rich? Would you be able to retire and never have to work again? From what would be left from that $200,000.00 after taxes and living expenses would you be able to invest enough that you would have a secure income from then on? If you couldn't, which you couldn't, you would not be rich. Most people who earn that kind of income have wives and children and mortgages and are paying for braces and paying for college and have various other loans (cars, boats, etc.) and when you subtract their total expenses from what it left of $200,000.00 after taxes, it does not equal lasting wealth and if the $200,000.00 stopped coming in, with the expenses someone like that would normally have it would not take all that long before they could find themselves in money trouble. If they were rich they would not need the $200,000.00 per year income. It would still be nice, but it would not be needed.

Having a good income that can end at any time is not the same as having a secure income that will cover all your needs, at least some of your desires, and still be capable of growing larger without the need of an income from working.

Plus, Obama rails on and on about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share and should be taxed higher, but he is targeting people that are not the millionaires and billionaires he rails about. He is targeting people who only have a good yearly income. He claims one thing, but wants to do something that is extremely different from what he says in hopes of garnering support.

He has fanned the fires of class warfare and has people, like you, heated up over a fallacy of what being rich actually is. He has misrepresented wealth enough times that there is a new definition for it being accepted by many that is not a valid definition.

Padawanbater2 · Oct 22, 2011

Define 'rich' and 'poor' for me BT.

Did you watch that clip I posted?

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

class warfare is dumb, don't blame the rich, blame the system, otherwise your just a douche. This coming from someone who has been homeless and never made over 90k...End the corporatism...not "rich" people...Glass Steagel Repeal+SuperPacs=GOOD GAME THEY WON

dukeanthony · Oct 22, 2011

kaeahabio said:
The wealthy in this country have written their own laws, not to mention the top 1% have 40% of all wealth, and the top 20% have 85% of all wealth. The 400 richest americans are worth what the bottom 150 million are worth, we have wealth inequality that rivals uganda and somalia, and some ignorant misinformed fools thinks thats just great. I grew up when we could get my comfortably on my fathers income, as we grew older my mother choose to go to school as it became tougher to get by, this was after Reagan spent more than every president before him combined, taking the USA from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor, not to mention the Iran Contra affair, follow that up by the good years under Clinton (who had surpluses leaving office thanks to the omnibus bill of 93 in which no republicans supported, and that was just a 4% hike on the most wealthy), then W not only pushed home ownership, destroyed meaningful regulation, 2 unfunded wars, accting gimmicks, and huge expanisions of govt thru Homeland Sec, and Medicare part d, and its not hard to understand why this country is in the shape it is. To add to all that the citizens united case has allowed massives amounts of money into politics, thanks to a decision that fell on party lines- 5 conservatives, and you start to get the idea. Reagan thru the fairness doctrine repeal has allowed conservative media along with the corporate media to lie and misinform the public for 30 years. Most people support the occupy movement, they might not know it, just like most Red states are welfare states that ironically bitch about the debt and lazy losers who wont find a job. Most conservatives are Democrats, just too misinformed to know!

/End of Discussion

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

Padawanbater2 said:
Define 'rich' and 'poor' for me BT

.

I already defined what "rich" is. Having a secure income that will cover all your needs, at least some of your desires, and still be capable of growing larger without the need of an income from working.

I am not sure I could accurately define "poor" in words but I suppose it might be something along the lines of not having enough income to consistently cover all your basic needs.

Did you watch that clip I posted?

No. I didn't notice it. It was a hockey and football night.

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

kaeahabio said:
The corporate crooks in this country have written their own laws, not to mention the top 4% have 56% of all wealth. we have wealth inequality that rivals uganda and somalia..

I grew up when we could get my comfortably on my fathers income, as we grew older my mother choose to go to school as it became tougher to get by, this was after Reagan spent more than the last few presidents before him combined, taking the USA from the worlds largest creditor to the worlds largest debtor, not to mention the Iran Contra affair, follow that up by the good years under Clinton (who had surpluses leaving office thanks to the omnibus bill of 93 in which no republicans supported, and that was just a 4% hike on the most wealthy) but he did help the corporations out a lot in his last couple of years, then W not only pushed home ownership, destroyed meaningful regulation, 2 unfunded wars, accting gimmicks, and huge expansions of govt thru Homeland Sec, and Medicare part d, and its not hard to understand why this country is in the shape it is. To add to all that the citizens united case has allowed massive amounts of money into politics, thanks to a decision that fell on party lines- 5 conservatives, and you start to get the idea. Reagan thru the fairness doctrine repeal has allowed the corporate media(nearly all media) to lie and misinform the public for 30 years, and entertain us with sensationalism that divides us. Most people support the occupy movement, they might not know it, . Most conservatives are Libertarians as are most democrats, just too misinformed to know!

Overall pretty good post, fixed that up so that I would agree 100%, changes in red aside from a few deleted lines

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

kaeahabio said:
Most people support the occupy movement, they might not know it,

I guess the Americans in a recent AP poll that showed only 37% of Americans support the Occupy Wall Street movement were mistaken about what they actually support and what they do not support.

just like most Red states are welfare states that ironically bitch about the debt and lazy losers who wont find a job. Most conservatives are Democrats, just too misinformed to know!

Red States, as in States with Republican legislatures, not as in how voters vote in national elections, are in a much better financial position due to better fiscal policies than Blue States. The result is people are moving to Red States.

The Red State in Your Future

Voters around the country are concluding it’s better to be red than dead—applying a whole meaning to an old phrase. If you do not currently live in a red state, there’s a good chance you will be in the near future. Either you will flee to a red state or a red state will come to you—because voters fed up with blue-state fiscal irresponsibility will elect candidates who promise to pass red-state policies.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 25 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans and 16 by Democrats, with eight split (i.e., each party controlling one house). There are 29 Republican governors and 20 Democrats, with one independent. And there are 20 states where Republicans control both the legislature and governor’s mansion vs. 11 Democratic, with 18 split (one party controls the governor’s office and the other the legislature).
And though we are a year away from the 2012 election, generic Republican vs. Democratic polls have given Republicans the edge for more than a year. If that pattern holds—and if blue-state leaders refuse to learn from their policy mistakes, just like their true-blue leader in the White House—it likely means there will be even more red states in 2013.
One reason for that shift is that red states are taking fiscal responsibility while many blue states aren’t—and it shows. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a bipartisan association of conservative state legislators, recently released its fourth edition of “Rich States, Poor States,” by the well-known Reagan economist Arthur B. Laffer, the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore, and Jonathan Williams of ALEC.
The study looks at factors that affect state prosperity and economic outlook, such as tax burdens and population change. What’s clear is that red or red-leaning states dominate the top positions while blue states have the dubious distinction of dragging in last. In the economic outlook section, for example, the top 20 states are bright red or lean red, while eight out of the bottom 10 are very blue: New York, Vermont, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon and Rhode Island.
Most of the “poor states” states, as ALEC calls them, have the highest personal income tax rates and the largest unfunded state pension liabilities. But instead of taking the red-state approach by lowering taxes and/or cutting spending, the blue states tend to want to raise taxes even higher, just like their White House mentor.
The result of their overpromising and overspending, and their knee-jerk response to solving their fiscal problems by raising taxes, is that people are increasingly fleeing the blue states. As commentator Michael Medved points out: “Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of ‘residents lost to other states’ were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia.”
The good news is that some blue states [at least five in the nearby map] have seen the light and are turning red, embracing the limited government/low taxes red-state vision and are coming back from the brink. Maine, for example, is one of ALEC’s bottom 10 states. But as of the last election, Maine now has a Republican state house and governor. And the new governor has been pushing for the red-state approach, cutting both taxes and state spending.
The Washington Times recently pointed out that “at least a dozen [mostly red] states ended fiscal 2011 with surpluses.” Maine was one of them.
And Maine is not alone. Blue-leaning Michigan and Wisconsin both have elected Republican legislatures and governors, as has swing-state Pennsylvania. And blue Minnesota now has a Republican legislature.

By contrast, some blue states appear determined to spend themselves into bankruptcy. The AP reported on Oct. 16, “Drowning in deficits, Illinois has turned to a deliberate policy of not paying billions of dollars in bills for months at a time.…” So that big tax increase passed by Obama’s home state, which likes to do things the Obama way, didn’t fix the revenue problem. Someone needs to call the president and explain that to him.
And California, another of the bluest states, faces similar problems. Just last year it was handing out IOUs because it couldn’t pay its bills. High taxes and chronic fiscal problems have Golden Staters leaving in droves.
Why won’t some of these blue-state fiscal basket cases learn the lesson that a state can’t tax and spend its way to prosperity? Well, for one thing, many of them have been hoping for a federal bailout—and President Obama tried. A Wall Street Journal article points out that about $200 billion of the president’s misnamed “jobs bill” was little more than a state bailout for teachers and construction workers.
But Republicans are refusing to be complicit in state fiscal irresponsibility. Call it tough love, but blue states will sink or swim on their own.
Many fed-up citizens in those blue states are leaving. But others have decided that if anyone is going to leave, it’s those big-spending politicians who brought on the fiscal disaster. It’s a lesson blue-state politicians better learn: It’s better to be red than dead.
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him at http://twitter.com/MerrillMatthews

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/10/21/the-red-state-in-your-future/

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

I'd argue "Democrats" are overall the least informed. (This coming from a liberal libertarian)

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

deprave said:
I'd argue "Democrats" are overall the least informed. (This coming from a liberal libertarian)

Democrats do not like facts. Facts are the enemy of Democrats. Facts make Democrats look exactly like they are, that being terrible. Democrats much prefer liberal talking point propaganda over facts. False reality and only false reality is what allows the Democratic party, in the hideous form it is presently in, to survive.

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

Well, to be a little more gentle about it:

They don't understand that philosophy can be practical thats their main problem in my view. They categorize all philosophers as ideologues.

To be fair: They are right in the aspect that things like 'trickle-down economics don't work' and that the republicans are just giving the same tired old spiel but without principles and morals(non-political) where do they stand? They stand without our Republic.

To be Rude: Are they just a bunch of suckers? Whos the bigger sucker? The philosophy or the identity? The same old shit or the same old shit?

fdd2blk · Oct 22, 2011

37% really isn't that low of a number, for a bunch of dirty hippies pounding drums.

robert 14617 · Oct 22, 2011

if they would spend 1/2 the effort at finding a job or getting educated then there would be nothing to protest

fdd2blk · Oct 22, 2011

robert 14617 said:
if they would spend 1/2 the effort at finding a job or getting educated then there would be nothing to protest

how much effort does it take to stand in the street?

is there a job for sitting in the street?

deprave · Oct 22, 2011

fdd2blk said:
how much effort does it take to stand in the street?

is there a job for sitting in the street?

yep , some protesters are paid. I agree with the protesters, I don't agree with the corporations and special interest trying to hijack it.

robert 14617 · Oct 22, 2011

don't they pay those people who stand on street corners with adds for pizza places

Brick Top · Oct 22, 2011

fdd2blk said:
37% really isn't that low of a number, for a bunch of dirty hippies pounding drums.

37% is not a miniscule percentage by any means, but it is not knocking on the door of being the "most people," which would mean a majority, some percentage over 50%, that was stated in what I replied to.

Originally Posted by kaeahabio
Most people support the occupy movement, they might not know it,

Do You Support The "Occupy"Protests?

Do you support the global "Occupy" protests?

Yes

No

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member