the best solution for the tea party problem -- disperse them with water cannons and tear gas -- time to restore order and civility in America
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Cuomo is ‘Preoccupied’ Wall Street Last Updated: 1:55 AM, October 24, 2011 Posted: 12:38 AM, October 24, 2011
Fredric U. Dicker INSIDE ALBANY
Gov. Cuomo suffered a rare political defeat over the weekend as he tried but failed to get Albany’s Democratic mayor to do something Mayor Bloomberg won’t do: shut down the local Occupy Wall Street demonstration. About 200 mainly young, hippie-like demonstrators “occupied’’ Albany’s Academy Park across from the Capitol on Friday night, pitching some 30 tents, claiming solidarity with Zuccotti Park protesters, and chanting for, among other things, higher taxes on the wealthy. Cuomo, fearful the action could spark a larger protest that would carry over and potentially disrupt the next legislative session -- where his continued opposition to a “millionaire’s tax’’ will be highly controversial -- demanded that Mayor Jerry Jennings, a longtime friend, enforce a city ordinance closing parks at 11 p.m..................>>>>..................>>>>>...............Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....26UuSO#ixzz1bhKyvVgP
the best solution for the tea party problem -- disperse them with water cannons and tear gas -- time to restore order and civility in America
Ah, DV wants to create socialism. No job, doesn't want to work, wants the taxes raised on the working homeowners so he can sit on his welfare handout.
Optimists close their eyes and pretend problems are non existent. Better to have open eyes, see the truths, acknowledge the negatives, and speak up for the people rather than the politicos and their rich cronies.
There is no difference in the ultimate goal of the tea party and the Occupy movements. The tea party people simply want to keep what they, the tea party people, have worked hard to obtain. The Occupy people, likewise, want to keep what the tea party people have worked hard to obtain.
Occupiers different from tea partiers — and in a good way
Regarding Howard Philipson’s Nov. 2 letter [“Occupy movement like tea party? Not a chance!”]. The headline is very appropriate, stating that the Occupy movement is not like the tea party. And he is correct in saying that there is 180 degrees of difference between them. However, the differences are not the ones he cites. The Occupy Wall Street [OWS] movement is not about government overthrow, but about government getting down to the job of governing, and governing all equally and fairly. That is what patriotism is about. And protesting is what the First Amendment is about. OWS is drawing significant attention to the anger of the 99 percent who are not rich but pay more than their fair share to make sure everyone has equal police and fire protection and teachers are in safe schools where they can educate children (some who arrive hungry and find their only real meals in school). They believe that roads and bridges must be safe, whether you drive a Chevy or are being driven in a limo. They see that failure to put efforts into future needs now, will only mean that the United States turns into a Third World nation. These are just some of the issues OWS is addressing. But the occupiers can’t speak with only one voice, because there are so many things that need to be changed, it’s hard to focus on just one. It starts with the biblical commandment that both the rich and poor must care for the widow and the orphan, so that is the main focus: We want to make sure the millionaires take on their fair share, and it’s why the message centers on the symbol of greed and the crimes committed by the Wall Street bankers and corporations, and the fact that protection which some in government provides let them shirk their fair share of that commitment. To understand what is seen as the greed factor, view the opulent lives some have created and watch an episode of the “Housewives of Beverly Hills.” You will explode with indignation at the obscene life styles they enjoy and then understand why the 99 percent are angry! Now to the behavior of some protesters — yes, there are pranksters, some along for the fun and others who are just there to make trouble. But I wonder and would not be the least surprised if some of these troublemakers are members of the tea party itself, or some other “party” sent to make the OWS look menacing. Both protesters and police may be guilty or improper behavior, but as with other scams set up by Andrew Breitbart (who edited the tape of Department of Agriculture worker Shirley Sherrod to falsely see her as biased against whites, as well as other scams) they may just be planted there to make the OWS look bad. Finally, Mr. Philipson refers to community organizers in a disparaging tone, but realize that the tea party is one such organization, as are church groups gathering to start soup kitchens, workers getting together to organize a golf tournament for a community cause or the “Race for the Cure.” Communities come together to meet communal needs or to help individuals. Whatever the cause, these people are special and along with President Obama should be honored, not vilified, for their efforts. Mishka Luft Niskayuna
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Talk about selective issues that OWS has, where is the tear down capitalism, the anti Semite crowd, the violence toward people and businesses, and the destruction in many of the cities where they protested . It's true that some of the issues that the Occupy groups have are valid and wall street has not acted in the best interest of anyone but themselves. The banks have made a fortune since Obama bailed them out so is it the banks fault for taking advantage of what the government has allowed them to do?
Talk about selective issues that OWS has, where is the tear down capitalism, the anti Semite crowd, the violence toward people and businesses, and the destruction in many of the cities where they protested . It's true that some of the issues that the Occupy groups have are valid and wall street has not acted in the best interest of anyone but themselves. The banks have made a fortune since Obama bailed them out so is it the banks fault for taking advantage of what the government has allowed them to do?
The Bank Bailout of 2008???
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was enacted October 3, 2008, by GEORGE WORST BUSH!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was enacted October 3, 2008, by GEORGE WORST BUSH!
Box, TARP is the SPENDING PROGRAM that bailed out the banks. Spending comes out of CONGRESS. The DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED Congress. The Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi Congress.
Not only did Bush trick Congress to invade Iraq, now he's responsible for them passing TARP becuase he signed a DEMOCRAT BILL into law. You are too funny box.
Barack Obama doesn't receive the most Wall Street dollars for no reason. He voted YES on TARP to bailout Wall Street, now he recollects those TARP funds in campaign contributions. Now that's change you can believe in.
Obama's Dangerous Bank Bailout Restoring Citi and BofA to greatness shouldn't be the goal.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. Like this columnist Team Obama is wrestling internally over the bank bailout supposedly to be introduced next week. We naturally are on the edge of our seats. [Business World] AP
But let's understand something: The taxpayer already stands behind the banking system, and is on the hook for its losses in one sense or another. Moreover, that guarantee has become more and more explicit in recent months -- which is not an unmixed blessing, since such explicitness has tended to create new uncertainty among those stakeholders not specifically included in the safety net.
The main uncertainty lately has been whether the safety net includes bank shareholders as well as depositors and creditors. That uncertainty is why we have crazy gyrations in bank share prices, and yet don't have bank runs. Citigroup's shareholders only account these days for a measly $20 billion, in a bank with liabilities of $2 trillion -- yet market speculation over their fate has seemed to be driving government actions. The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Here we see the downside of explicitness. By committing specific sums to given banks, policy makers only ended up inviting new speculation about what happens when those cushions are exhausted by fresh accounting writedowns. And now Team Obama seems about to recapitulate this folly with another round of explicit guarantees.
By current leakage, their plan will consist of explicit government insurance for certain bad assets and explicit purchases of other bad assets to be held by a so-called bad bank. For the months or years, then, that it takes to put the plan into effect, the market will have to speculate anew about how each bank's assets will be valued for bailout purposes.
So shadow seems to be against the OBAMA bank bailout... but does not mention the Bush Bank Bailout.
Selective outrage!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I was against all bailouts by both Bush and Obama, the greedy banks got themselves into the mess with the help of the government now let them figure out their own way out. This over spending didn't start in 2008, it has been going on since FDR and now, like all countries who have tried to allow the government to provide all, have finally run out of other peoples money and they don't have a clue about what to do.
Talk about selective issues that OWS has, where is the tear down capitalism, the anti Semite crowd, the violence toward people and businesses, and the destruction in many of the cities where they protested . It's true that some of the issues that the Occupy groups have are valid and wall street has not acted in the best interest of anyone but themselves. The banks have made a fortune since Obama bailed them outso is it the banks fault for taking advantage of what the government has allowed them to do?
Your words not mine. You blame Obama... no mention of Bush.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
