LOL. Not at all. 70 years simply refers to modern post-depression financial politics in this country.

:D Good lord. I referred to no "starting point". Here's what I said - that you think "70 years" is the most important thing to take out of what I said - let alone falsely changing it to different meanings - is simply amazing :D

Riot said:
"Oh - and those people are no longer in the parks, they are in places like ... the halls of Congress today. Getting 400,000 people to withdraw money from big banks with bad practices in favor of credit unions last month. Getting the conversation changed from the false Republican "fix the deficit" nonsense, to the reality of income inequality and the nasty influence, over the past 70 years, of money in our politics."

No the important point is that you cant get money out of politics or really anything for that matter. You can pass laws till you are blue in the face but money is going to always be a major factor unless you live in fantasyland. There is no greater place than horse racing to see that people will do things for money regardless of how much they already have or how little they need more. Multipy that by 1000 and you have modern politics.

There is a storm coming and if folks in power don't wake up, they will reap the wild wind. Quote all the clever statistics you want, rejoice in the "brilliance" of the right's soundbites, in the end the scales will be balanced either by fairness and a sense of brotherhood or by blood. Phil Ochs wrote this years ago, dated but still a look into the near future if things don't change!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rni9Cwoe6g

I hope for fu cks sake I never become rich because no matter how much I paid or gave away it would never be enough to some.

That certainly could prove true.

But that assumption doesn't explain why those that are trying to get money out of politics are getting so thoroughly attacked and denigrated, not only by the established monied interests in politics (that's logical to defend their status quo), but by their fellow citizens.

Strange.

Wow, that's a blast from the past - thanks!

If you go on YouTube and search on "Occupy songs", lots of newly written good "folk" songs come up.

Including the Occupy song Makena sang to President Obama and other leaders at the APEC dinner in Hawaii a few weeks back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VegV-8vu7go

Perhaps because the methods are getting tiresome. There is nothing worse than the guy at the game trying to get on tv with some clever sign or acting like a fool. That is basically what many people think of OWS. He might be an honor student that helps old ladies cross the street but his act is a turnoff. What they "stand for" (though it is still debatable that there are arent a lot of things that they support that aren't palatable in mainstream America) becomes secondary when America grows weary of them. In case you didnt notice our society has a short attention span and OWS is getting to be the same old story. You can blame the media all you want but to most there is nothing really tangible changing because of OWS.

Well, too bad most people pay so little attention, and think that's all Occupy is about. Low information voters and all that, I guess. But you seem to know all about it.

Getting 400,000 people to change their banks within a month was a pretty successful "movement" action.

No, what "they stand for" isn't debatable :D. Why don't you list the specific Occupy demands that you say are not palatable in mainstream America? Because the mainstream embracing seems to be increasing constantly - look at what Cleveland just did. What did the President discuss today? What happened in the halls of Congress today?

But basically, you are saying that the very people that could benefit from OWS actions are attacking them because ... they have low attention spans and don't like Occupy methods?

That's kind of insulting, don't you think?

Yes, peaceful legal public protest and wanting politicians to change laws to get money out of politics is so radical and offensive.

You wanted an explanation and I gave one. Few people in this country even know who their congressman/woman is so acting like the common man has his finger on the pulse of daily political posturing is silly. If that is insulting...well turn on tv and see what Americans watch. I dont think that people are attacking OWS they are just kind of tired of it. Unlike you who sees all these great things happening, most people could care less what a bunch of stiffs in Cleveland think, what the president is speaking about now or banks losing customers. Now if Kim Kardashian joined the protests then it is a whole new ball game.

Yeah, that's pretty pathetic on the part of some, isn't it? Too bad. That's exactly how we got here - ignorance, laziness and lack of caring. But again, that begs the question: so why are the ignorant, lazy and those that don't care disparaging and denigrating those that do care about the mess this country is in?

Between last weeks storm and the Occupy L.A. people the city of L.A is out 72 mil. For a group of people who seem to be down with the man and up with the hard working folks they really dont give a crap how much us people who have been at work while they are protesting have to pay for their freedom to protest. If they really gave a crap they would come back and clean up their mess instead of us the tax payers having to pay city union workers overtime to clean up the mess that wasnt there until they made it.
The most confounding thing is that the local T.V station must have interviewed 30 people and only 1 girl who is a student had any clue or made any sense when asked what the reason for the protest was.

I have a great idea. Why don't all the sucessfull millionaires move into tents and give their mansions to these bums.

Why don't you look back over the last two years and try and recall why you chided me for criticizing virtually EVERY bailout/loan/stimulus put forth.

You have been the head cheerleader for any government spending no matter what it was for and now you want to get money out of politics? How Sybil of you! :zz:

Wonder how those Patriots would have acted if once the British were defeated the new government came and told them they need to "collect 4 cents on every dollar earned and 6 cents for every dollar paid and they (Gov) will keep it for safe keeping on top of a personal income tax not to exceed 34%. Then tax on the farm or any property owned, and everything you buy.

Oh and you're going to have to buy a license plate and sticker for every horse/wagon you own, need to go get tested and licensed to ride and drive, need a FOID card and register every gun, buy shots for the dogs and kids, license for the dog, and a extra tax on top of sales for the barber."

Then when he asks what all the money is for, tell him "while we will use some of the money for the military and defense three times that money will be used to pay anyone not working for two years, for single mothers and kids, the elderly and anyone who can't afford medical care."

In Somer speak reminds me of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9p8xxgT748

Please explain how the Koch brothers purchasing Herman Cain and trying to make him President is the same as Cash for Clunkers.

It's not but it's pretty close to (insert name) union supporting Obama and then being thrown billions back under the guise of creating jobs.

What unions were thrown "billions"? Do you mean the auto industries that were literally saved, are now thriving, have paid back their loans, and did indeed save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry and associated mfg and supply chains?

That resounding and unquestionable success?

And yes, all corporate money - including unions - should be out of electoral politics IMO.

And no, I am not in favor of "any government spending, no matter what it is for".

Huh? GM was loaned $49.5 billion, has paid back $23.2 and has a balance left of $26.3 billion and that's the catch. That supposed $26 billion and change (change being $300,000,000.00) is represented by a 23.2% stake in GM or 500 million shares. GM closed at $21.94 so our $26.3 billion stake is currently worth just under $11 billion.

Your idea of a resounding, unquestonable success is a $15.4 billion loss :tro:
A negative 31% on investment. And that new Volt they put out? It's Yugo like.

Why is that "a catch"? They are paying it back, Obama saved the auto industry, and it was a resounding success and everyone knows it. It saved hundreds of thousands of jobs.

You made the charge, and I quote, "It's not but it's pretty close to (insert name) union supporting Obama and then being thrown billions back under the guise of creating jobs."

So put up: Dell, what unions received money under the "guise", and what was the "guise" that didn't produce jobs? How much money did "the unions" receive?

They are done paying it off get it and that's the catch. The 23.2% stake we have in GM (500 million shares) was it. If and only if GM gets to $52.60 will we be even. GM also announced this week it would be laying off salaried (white collar) employees.

BTW I just saw the Chevy Silverado (GM) was the second most popular vehicle in October but only rep. for GM.

Incidenty Ford, who received no, actually refused any bailout funds had the number one slot with the Ford F Series, the 4rth spot with the Escape, and the 6th spot with the Fusion. Only other American vehicle was the Dodge Ram.

Hope at least for our sake GM realizes the American public still wants trucks and SUV's and not golf cart like cars. Until our almost 1/4 share in GM is dissolved the Federal Government should refrain from making any regulations or changes to the auto industry to avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest.