Jon Stewart nails it, again!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-o ... onstration

Again, I wonder why the Tea Party isn't on board with this.

Already posted hours ago by SC on another thread.

Soulshiner wrote: www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5...ks-and-demonstration

Again, I wonder why the Tea Party isn't on board with this.

If the OWS people had this idea back when Bush was president, they would be protesting against government....just like the Tea Party did. But since this is more of an Obama friendly group, they are protesting banks and big business. They really should consider how much Wall Street money went to the Obama campaign and how little was done to change anything they have an issue with.

If this movement is to have any success, they need to organize a political strategy and accomplish their goals by putting pressure on politicians like the Tea Party did. You can protest businesses and the wealthy forever, but you can't expect to see changes unless you focus on the only people who are capable of forcing those changes.

I'm sure their focus will change if a Republican is elected in 2012, but I don't think they will have much of an impact if the economy turns around (and I believe it will).

I believe the economy will turn around, I'm just not sure it will make a difference if the GOP is in charge or the Democrats are in charge.

I don't think the protest is as much political as it is societal....people are angry, that's a given. What they are angry about applies to both parties, for too long our society and our political system have been sold to the highest bidder.....a lot of money is spent by corporations and those with vast wealth on politicians of both parties to influence what they do and how they vote. If that money were spent on job creation, and/or reinvested into the company in R&D, which may in turn create jobs, we might well be in better shape as a nation. Not only do the wealthy and corps enjoy access to the seat of power that ordinary Americans do not, but they also pay well for perks and preferential treatment from government that citizens do not have.

Is it so wrong to want our government to be working for US, not for the money they can gain from lobbyists, not to mention their income, health coverage, perks, and more than generous pensions? The protesters see a lot of pain in mainstream America, but surely don't see that pain in the halls of congress, the white house, the big corporations, or the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Perception is everything, and the perception to middle class American citizens is they are being asked to sacrifice, while others profit.

We can solve the whole problem of wealth buying favor simply by returning the federal government to its constitutionally limited role. If there is no benefit derived from contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to a political candidate or their party then it would be a waste of money instead of an investment of it to make those contributions. Pretty simple really, remove the power and you remove the incentive. I fail to understand why the "progressives" remain blind to this Ocham's Razor reality. Why is it that they remain blind to the reality that increased regulations harm the small business more than the large ones, which essentially turns the regulatory might of the federal government into a weapon against small businesses. The large companies are the ones that have the ability to absorb the cost of the burdens imposed by the federal government. That is why all of the regulations imposed by this administration are pandering to the Wall Street that financed their last campaign and are being expected to help finance the upcoming one as well. Wall Street gave more to the Democrats in 2008 - and look at all the benefits that investment has resulted in for them while Obama has been sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Centralization of power in the federal government is precisely why we are faced with a centralization of wealth. Decentralize the power and you will decentralize the wealth.

PrintSmith wrote: Why is it that they remain blind to the reality that increased regulations harm the small business more than the large ones.

Blind to it? I doubt it.

Let me see....endure irritation when dealing with red tape when running my small business or give up all regulation so I don't have to fill out so many forms but end up dead from eating adulterated unregulated food, radiated from unregulated nuclear power plants or maimed from an exploding unregulated defective product?

You are wrong if you think people who think regulation has a place are blind to the downside, it just may be that they accept the cost of regulation rather than risk the cost of what happens in a totally unregulated market. And please spare me the fantasy talk about "perfect markets regulating themselves". Anyone who still believes in that fairy tale probably also believes in Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Since you seem anxious to drag the nation back to the era of the Robber Barons, should we talk about the kind of horrors that unregulated period "enjoyed"? In hideously unsafe workplaces? In adulterated food? In quack remedies?

PrintSmith wrote: We can solve the whole problem of wealth buying favor simply by returning the federal government to its constitutionally limited role. If there is no benefit derived from contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to a political candidate or their party then it would be a waste of money instead of an investment of it to make those contributions. Pretty simple really, remove the power and you remove the incentive. I fail to understand why the "progressives" remain blind to this Ocham's Razor reality. Why is it that they remain blind to the reality that increased regulations harm the small business more than the large ones, which essentially turns the regulatory might of the federal government into a weapon against small businesses. The large companies are the ones that have the ability to absorb the cost of the burdens imposed by the federal government. That is why all of the regulations imposed by this administration are pandering to the Wall Street that financed their last campaign and are being expected to help finance the upcoming one as well. Wall Street gave more to the Democrats in 2008 - and look at all the benefits that investment has resulted in for them while Obama has been sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Centralization of power in the federal government is precisely why we are faced with a centralization of wealth. Decentralize the power and you will decentralize the wealth.

Great points PS. The other unintended consequence is that the increased costs due to regulations and tax increases are eventually paid for by we the people.

A good commentary on the subject.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002295.htm

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Blind to it? I doubt it.

Let me see....endure irritation when dealing with red tape when running my small business or give up all regulation so I don't have to fill out so many forms but end up dead from eating adulterated unregulated food, radiated from unregulated nuclear power plants or maimed from an exploding unregulated defective product?

?

That's the choice? Enduring irritation or dieing?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZqzDEjUHHmMXZEplO-0FJOVn4KmLO5lIN4unbhtO6loW0XzXemLas2nM_

Soulshiner wrote: A good commentary on the subject.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002295.htm

As soon as I read "Tea Baggers", that was enough to know that link is a waste of time.