How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Occupy Wall Street

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


100 posted 10-12-2011 02:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Maybe participating in the Occupy Piccadilly event???
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


101 posted 10-12-2011 02:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer



Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.

When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/#ixzz1aamidJAk
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


102 posted 10-12-2011 06:30 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     You might think of it that way, and it might be true for all I know.  To present it as the truth or anything other than party serving bilgewater seems to be a a serious plea that your readers put aside all ability to think of other possible and even more likely reasons for this.

     1}  Wall Street had seen where all that time in Republican Hands had gotten the economy, and they were throwing their money behind the Democrats in hopes of at least arresting the free fall.  Exactly how much money explains how very concerned they were.

     2)  Perhaps you've forgotten exactly whom President Obama and Vice President Biden were running against?  Now given the fact that McCain was actively presenting himself as a guy who was looking for a fight in Iran and possibly in other places across the globe as well, and his running mate was (no description here is, I think, needed) Sarah Palin, I'm reasonably sure that most wall street folks thought that we were better off being governed by actual people than a couple of fugitives from a Warner Brother's cartoon.

     3)   Is it possible that the Republicans might have lost in terms of votes as well as dollars?  Might that not have been as badly?

     Therefore, the number three reason I have to offer here is that Wall Street, like almost everybody else, saw just how great a job the Republicans had done over the previous eight years and funded accordingly.  They weren't voting to buy  Democrats; they were voting to get rid of Republicans.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


103 posted 10-12-2011 06:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Speaking about the previous 8 years simply offers the same dishonesty that has been used many times because it ignores the first six years of those 8  which were quite prosperous and also ignores the fact that the last two years coincided with when the democrats took control of congress.

I'll agree that Wall Street threw money at Obama, looking for the change he was preaching, but I doubt they gave so much to him so that he would come out and trash them. I assume he is not expecting as much from them this time around or he may be quite disappointed.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


104 posted 10-12-2011 08:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I do believe that your response, Mike, is a pretty straightforward party line response to the economic question when it's raised.  That would be, "Wasn't there, don't know anything about it, it was the Democrats anyway."  You have a perfectly understandable right to assert that point of view, and to suggest that must have been the reason that McCain and Company won the astonishing victory they did in '08.  That and President Bush's sincere efforts to put social security into the hands of the public.

     Tell me, as an aside, where you would have invested your profits from all that social security money after it had been returned to you the way President Bush wanted it to be?  Tell me, how much money would you have made by now?

     Just askin'?

     Those of us with some sense of history might have some disagreement with your memory of the way you recall things, but you have a right to see things your way.

     I do notice that you've managed to leave the other two fairly obvious points untouched, though.  

     The issue isn't whether you agree with them or not, however; I think the issue is whether the public will keep them in mind.  I happen to think them obvious, but the Republicans are much better at spin and message control on the whole than the Democrats seem to be.  

     It may not be that the things I'm suggesting as fairly obvious will manage to get any traction at all in the public debate, and your point of view will be the one that sweeps the field.

     On the other hand, we're at the point where the Democrats have a fairly obvious choice for candidate, and the Republicans are still running "generic."  I think a lot of the final results will depend on which actual person fills the role of "generic" when the actual campaign begins.  There are a lot of independents — and Democrats, for that matter — angry with the president that will have to rethink their positions when an actual candidate appears in opposition.

     Am I really angry enough not to vote?

     Or, am I really angry enough to vote for somebody like Huntsman?

     Or whichever candidate the Republicans choose.

     And we have to wonder what effect the Tea Party folks are going to have.  Are they Republicans?  Are they a third Party?  If they're Republican, how far right are they going to force the choice of candidate, and what effect will that have on the independents who may have some different ideas about debt, abortion, foreign policy and other things that the very extreme Right will want a big chunk of deciding for the platform?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


105 posted 10-15-2011 11:05 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“At least 1,000 people are demonstrating in London's financial district as part of a worldwide protest against alleged corporate greed.”


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15322134


Coming across the pond for an example:


The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers. And that largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had “little skin in the game” while the government would be providing “a significant subsidy (65+ percent).” The memo goes on to say that, while the project backers would only provide equity equal to about 11 percent of the total cost of the wind project, they would receive an “estimated return on equity of 30 percent.”

The memo continues, explaining that the carbon dioxide reductions associated with the project “would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton for CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.” The memo continues, saying that that per-ton cost is “more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules.”

The Obama administration’s loan guarantee for the now-bankrupt Solyndra has garnered lots of attention, but the Shepherds Flat deal is an even better example of corporate welfare. Several questions are immediately obvious:

First: Why, as Browner and Summers asked, is the federal government providing loan guarantees and subsidies for an energy project that could easily be financed by GE, which has a market capitalization of about $170 billion?

Second: Why is the Obama administration providing subsidies to GE, which paid little or no federal income taxes last year even though it generated some $5.1 billion in profits from its U.S. operations?

Third: How is it that GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, can be the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness while his company is paying little or no federal income taxes? That question is particularly germane as the president never seems to tire of bashing the oil and gas industry for what he claims are the industry’s excessive tax breaks.  

Over the past year, according to Yahoo! Finance, the average electric utility’s return on equity has been 7.1 percent. Thus, taxpayer money is helping GE and its partners earn more than four times the average return on equity in the electricity business.

A few months ago, I ran into Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy. I asked him why Duke — which has about 14,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity — was investing in wind9energy projects. The answer, said Rogers forthrightly, was simple: The subsidies available for wind projects allow Duke to earn returns on equity of 17 to 22 percent.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279802/america-s-worst-wind-energy-project-robert-bryce?pg=2
.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


106 posted 10-15-2011 12:18 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Where did Uncas go?


quote:
Maybe participating in the Occupy Piccadilly event???


Actually I've been touring Europe, five days in southern Spain, then a leisurely drive back through Madrid to the South of France, then up the west coast of France and across to Ypres in Belgium to visit the WW1 memorials. Ain't capitalism grand?

The occupy Wall Street folk?

I'm in favour of them.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


107 posted 10-15-2011 04:50 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Well, John, The NR has a point.

     I, too, think that corporate welfare is wretched.  Since all you're doing is quoting, how you're thinking remains mysterious.  I don't like corporate welfare in Republican administrations and I'm against it in Democratic administrations as well.  Do you have any position on the matter?

     If, however, you're going to use corporate welfare as a policy tool, something that I think this administration has done, then I notice that they seem to have deployed this particular policy tool in line with their policy objectives, and have gotten the investment stream to follow  up the incentives by investing in Green energy possibilities as opposed to the lower paying regular energy investment opportunities — at least in the case that the NR is complaining about.  This may be part of why the NR is crying Foul.


     To me this seems the sort of tactic a Liberal Republican would use; that is, to incentivize the investment process to pull capital in the direction you want it to go — using market forces to national advantage —  rather than simply give cash grants alone.That would tend to support my theory of Obama as a man out of his time, more of a Liberal Republican than a Liberal Democrat, but I have a weakness for my own theory building, and I might be off base.

     I think the money ought to go to the poor, personally, but then I'm not a practical politician.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


108 posted 10-15-2011 05:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sounds like a wonderful way to spend a few days, Uncas.

There is nothing wrong with anyone being in favor of a peaceful protest movement. Protest movements have helped shape our country, from the original tea party, to suffragettes, the civil rights movements and so on. When the government shows that it is not going to pay attention to it's citizens, protest marches can make the difference.

In order for these movements to be right and effective, I think  three points must be followed. First, it must be peaceful and not infringe on the rights of others. Second, it must have a goal. It needs to be able to state what  it is protesting and how the protestors want to change things. Third, it must be aimed at the right target. If you are protesting the high cost of hamburgers, you don't protest Lord & Taylor's.

I don't see where the occupiers meet any of these three points. There have been almost 1000 arrested on various charges, they have taken over private property, and shown utter disregard for rights of others.

What are they protesting? Depends who you ask. Take your pick....government bailouts, unemployment, Wall Street bonuses, elimination of all personal debt, free college education, guaranteed  jobs....the list goes on and on. Do they offer any solutions for the things  they are protesting against? No, they just carry "Down with Capitalism" signs and shake their fists.

Third, what are they doing at Wall Street? What has the  stock market done? They didn't bail out anyone. Washington did. They gave out big bonuses? So...? Obama has blasted Wall Street while taking their money. He doesn't speak in specifics. He speaks to inflame the  masses. When asked by a reporter why some of the Wall Street bigwigs weren't in jail, Obama was forced to explain that the  reason was that  they hadn't done anything to break the law. Well, then!! If they haven't broken the law, whose fault is it? Obama went on to say that, well, they hadn't broken the law but the things they did just weren't right. Excuse me? That was Obama that said that???? Well, perhaps we need Morality Police with arrest powers.  Corporations have done exactly whatthe government has allowed them to do, by the law. Ron mentioned in an earlier thread that it was an American's right and duty to take advantage of all deductions afforded and use them to his best advantage. Well, that's what businesses do. If the president  doesn't think that's right, then change the laws, remove the loopholes. DOn't blame the corporations for doing what they are supposed to be doing. The problem is with the administration, not the corporations. The protestors should have one target.....Washington D.C. They should be protesting the White House and Congress. Through careful manipulation by Obama, with help from the left-wing media, he has shifted the blame from where it belongs to corporate America.....and the occupiers are too dumb to see how they are being manipulated. They are too busy protesting....
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


109 posted 10-15-2011 06:21 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Yes Mike, corporations are allowed to take advantage of the rules, which would work perfectly well if you had a political system that allowed your government to set reasonably rules. Unfortunately your political system has been perverted to a point where the corporations effectively write the rules.

That’s what the protestors are protesting Mike, sure it comes out in different slogans, chants and signage but the base message is the same. Corporations are buying your politicians with impunity and re-writing the rules if you can’t see that you need to look at some of the inane things your government has done, things that no sane person would see as anything other than politicians bending to the coercion and pressure of corporations.

People could donate to the campaign funds of politicians they supported, corporations, not being people, couldn’t, which restricted their ability to bribe politicians  somewhat – a little bit of lobbying and, hey presto, corporations are people.  A lack of regulation in the financial sector resulted in a catastrophic world depression – anyone with half a brain could see that regulation was needed to stop the same thing happen again – banking corporations however don’t really want regulation cramping their style so guess what - deregulation is the new mantra from Washington.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


110 posted 10-15-2011 06:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Corporations buying politicians....inane things the government is doing...

Sounds to me like you are agreeing that the protestors should be in Washington d.c.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


111 posted 10-15-2011 06:34 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


No, they’re in the right place Mike.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


112 posted 10-15-2011 06:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok...whatever.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


113 posted 10-15-2011 10:42 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


London


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15324901


.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


114 posted 10-15-2011 11:47 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Nazis and Communists throw their support behind OWS:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


115 posted 10-16-2011 12:04 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"The true purpose of the Occupy movement appears to be further economic and governmental destabilization, at a time when the world is already facing major financial and political challenges. By embracing the Occupy movement, President Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and their union allies may be supporting an effort to harm both the domestic and global economies; to create social unrest throughout the democratic world; and to embrace other radical causes, including the anti-Israel movement. Ironically, the emails suggest that the President and the Democrat Party may soon find their friends in the Occupy movement to be a political burden. The email below calls for the Occupy movement to begin “executing higher-risk actions, civil disobedience and arrests,” and suggests: “We must draw a line, disavow the Democrats explicitly, make our messaging a little uncomfortable.”


http://biggover nment.com/abreitbart/2011/10/14/crowdsource-this-social-list-emails-expose-occupywallstreet-conspiracy-to-destablize-global-markets-governments/
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


116 posted 10-16-2011 12:13 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here is the email archive:


http://biggovernment.com/thomasryan/2011/10/14/the-email-archive-of-the-occupywallstreet-movement-anarchists-socialists-jihadists-unions-democrats/
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


117 posted 10-16-2011 01:27 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The Corporate Exec: Hollywood Demon

Nazis are getting old, moviemakers don't want to offend foreign audiences, so corporate types top the list of evil stereotypes.

It is not surprising that pop-culture protesters are now intent on occupying Wall Street. For the past decade, Hollywood has been casting financiers as the demonic villains of society. In the multiplexes, businessmen have replaced even terrorists as villains.

In the Warner Bros. political thriller "Syriana," for example, the villain is not al Qaeda, an enemy state, the mafia, or even a psychotic serial killer. Rather, it's the big oil companies who manipulate terrorism, wars and social unrest to drive up oil prices. “

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204524604576610762349124314.html


Think about that . . .
Name off the recent movies where the
bad guys looking to destroy/control
the world are corporations.
Businessmen are the now Elders of Zion . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


118 posted 10-16-2011 01:32 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Gosh, it sounds like only really unpleasant people support OWS.  Perhaps that justifies doing really extreme things to them?  It sounds like they are communists and terrorists and nazis who are getting together do have wild sex and do drugs right in public places.  The next thing you know, they might articulate a platform that sounds like it supports civil Liberties and human rights and suggests that people might benefit from having federally sponsored health care and a non-toxic environment.

     Some people might actually want to own their own homes without being cheated out of them by corrupt banking practices, and others might actually want to get fair pay for a full day's work.  I hear tell that there may even be a few misguided souls who are seriously steamed about what they see as inequities in the system we have that seem to get in the way of some of these things being addressed, and are unhappy at the  government deadlock that's funded by some of these larger corporations that keep these issues from being addressed.

     I would, in fact, be one of those people.

     Am I supposed to be bothered by reports that communists and Nazis support the demonstrators?  I'm not.  The quoted report of Nazi support reads like a clinical case study of paranoid ravings, and if there are nazis who think that way, they're simply too disorganized to function as a meaningful political force.  There are other far Right loonies that I find more troubling, and they aren't supporting the wall street demonstrators at all.  Pick your own organized Far right group that can write a fairly reasonable English sentence.  Use them for an example.

     As for the communists, I have yet to meet a set of far right wing folks who understood what the communists were and who they were. They get the evil well enough, and sometimes even better than their left wing counterparts; but they miss the idealism and the hope. It's fairly common for our current crop of Right wing lunatics, such as Rush Limbaugh, to be unable to tell the difference between Nazis and Communists, and to call our current president both at the same time.  To most of these folks, they are both synonyms with "bad," and one might as well use the word "ugly" to substitute.  As long as these demagogues can fool you into not thinking critically about the stuff they say, their smears have served their purpose.

     In this case, that would be to keep the public from looking at how gridlocked we are as a country, and how gridlocked we are likely to remain as long as we  continue to buy into this spurious left/right struggle instead of  getting the corporations out of politics and letting us work out our differences without having chemical money and banking money and oil money yanking our economic and social and foreign policy around like a yo-yo.

     No, I don't want to live in a communist state, or a fascist state — which seems much more likely to me.

     I want enough of my freedoms left so that the governments I help elect are responsive to the will of the people who elect them and not the companies that fund their campaigns.  

     So I'm more or less on the side of those folks who think that those companies should stop trying to buy the people who I elect.  Companies aren't people; people are people.  Money isn't speech, words are speech.  Free speech does not seem to me to suggest that those with the most money should be able to buy a better hearing unless that have something to say.  And the last I heard, at least for the bottom 99%, money isn't free.

     Maybe for the top 1%, though, it's a tax write-off.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


119 posted 10-16-2011 01:46 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     All corporations are not evil.  If you believe I've said that, you've misread me.  What the wall street folks are saying depends on how sophisticated they are about the situation.

     Some corporations really are without conscience, or at least they act that way.  Some are mixed.

     What we need is a model of corporations that demands a certain amount of service to the community for that corporation to continue its charter.  Treatment of indigineous populations such as the treatment some oil companies have modeled in south American should be cause for the removal of the papers of incorporation and all tax advantages plus substantial and painful fines and criminal penalties for the executives involved, for example.  Fair trade practices, conversely, should be rewarded appropriately.  

     When one talks about "all" corporations or "all" individuals then one is talking automatic nonsense — generalizations that large have a very difficult time supporting their own weight.  They tend to crumble against the force of gravity and shoddy construction.  If you'd like to include this generalization in that number, please feel free.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


120 posted 10-16-2011 10:34 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Bob, it is the stated goal of the organizers behind this 'movement', OWS, to collapse our system entirely as can be seen in their 'planning' emails. And now the Nazi and Communists groups have come out publicly giving their support. I know that you don't want the collapse of our system. How then can you support them knowing their goals? They are merely using the frustrated protestors, some of whom have legitimate gripes, for their own ends of creating chaos, collapsing our system and instituting the system they desire. Remember Van Jones, the self-avowed Communist, former Obama Green Jobs functionary, who called for a bottom-up/top-down strategy to affect a revolution? That is what is being attempted here. It's a Bill Ayres/Weather Underground 1960's redux, which they are hoping will meet with success this time around.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


121 posted 10-16-2011 11:22 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“Whenever the economy goes south, experts talk of the housing “bubble,” the tech “bubble,” the credit “bubble.” But the real bubble is the 1950 “American moment,” and our failure to understand that moments are not permanent. The United States emerged from the Second World War as the only industrial power with its factories intact and its cities not reduced to rubble, and assumed that that unprecedented preeminence would last forever: We would always be so far ahead and so flush with cash that we could do anything and spend anything and we would still be Number One. . .

Beneath the allegedly young idealism are very cobwebbed assumptions about societal permanence. The agitators for “American Autumn” think that such demands are reasonable for no other reason than that they happen to have been born in America, and expectations that no other society in human history has ever expected are just part of their birthright. But a society can live on the accumulated capital of a glorious inheritance only for so long. And in that sense this bloodless, insipid revolution is just a somewhat smellier front for the sclerotic status quo.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280173/crisis-decadence-mark-steyn?pg=2

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


122 posted 10-16-2011 11:33 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It's not always corporations that buy off politicians. Sometimes it's the other way around. Solyndra comes to mind. Going to be very interesting when that investigation picks up speed.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


123 posted 10-16-2011 01:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Nothing new under the sun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YtVxuFXwc&feature=player_embedded
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


124 posted 10-16-2011 03:15 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Nothing new under the sun


Good point Denise.

In the great depression the government spent money to create jobs and kick-start consumer spending, the cartoon you linked to shows that some people at the time thought that was a bad idea, that it would lead to the total collapse of the American economy.

Fortunately they were wrong.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Occupy Wall Street   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors