Occupy Wall Street Media Coverage-Darn I have to go there!

[footdr]

Quote from October 25 article on Huffington Post:

"We see it in their approach to Occupy Wall Street. The GOP strategy seems to be that if they can dismiss the protesters as a bunch of crazies ".

Where have I heard this approach before? Oh yes, when the first grass roots Tea Party rallies were held.

I love the hypocrisy of the left. The Tea Party grassroots movement was hijacked by conservative groups just as the Occupy Wall Street movement has been hijacked by liberal groups, not to mention the Socialist Party of American and the Communist Party of American moving in.

Don't even go there. Unless your blind and deaf, it is obvious that no matter who protests and for what, their cause will be hijacked by groups and parties that want to use the momentum for their political gain.

Take Michael Moore. An opportunist that is in the "1%" even though he foolishly tries to deny it. He makes his living off of these "causes". What a hypocrite.

Take President Obama, he has had the highest campaign contributi*ons both in his 2008 election campaign and the present one of any other Presidenti*al Candidate in recent history. He is a hypocrite. Take the Democrats in Congress the majority have taken contributions from Wall Street. They are hypocrites. I don't hear Republicans denying they have taken contributions from Wall Street.

The protesters should be asking that the Presidents advisers that were employees of the very Wall Street firms that the protesters claim caused the financial crisis be replaced. The fact the President keeps these people and hired these people makes him a hypocrite.

Those employees were employed by Wall Street firms before, during and some after the crisis. Why would the President award them jobs in the White House instead of admonishing them and people like them? The very people OWS is against.

And, why are these protesters so blind to the real cause of the financial crisis which began under the Clinton Administration. The Administration in power when the first subprime bank bailout occured? The laws passed by both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses are what allowed this to happen. The welfare state ideology of the liberals was one huge cause of the housing crisis.

I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. I am sick of this B-it

 

[slotplayer]

I think it was Phil Gramm - just Google his name.


"As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Gramm was Washington's most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played the leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial banks from Wall Street, and he inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives such as credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)."

 

[footdr]

They need to re-enact Glass-Stegal...

However, the real problem started with the Clinton Administration and his and the democrats desire to make homes more affordable for low-income families by making the qualification requirement more lax and by reducing the necessary down-payment that was 20% through private lenders.

Government backed loans reduced down payment and private lenders were forced to follow suit. Fannie and Freddie played huge role including purchasing sub-prime loans and lenders packaged the loans.

Packaging and trading mortgage loans where borrowers made atleast 10% down and were properly qualified based on monthly income-expenses is not so bad. But the Government pushing for mortgage loans to people that shouldn't have qualified caused the problem.

 

[harrys99]

whew

Quote from October 25 article on Huffington Post:

"We see it in their approach to Occupy Wall Street. The GOP strategy seems to be that if they can dismiss the protesters as a bunch of crazies ".

Where have I heard this approach before? Oh yes, when the first grass roots Tea Party rallies were held.

I love the hypocrisy of the left. The Tea Party grassroots movement was hijacked by conservative groups just as the Occupy Wall Street movement has been hijacked by liberal groups, not to mention the Socialist Party of American and the Communist Party of American moving in.

Don't even go there. Unless your blind and deaf, it is obvious that no matter who protests and for what, their cause will be hijacked by groups and parties that want to use the momentum for their political gain.

Take Michael Moore. An opportunist that is in the "1%" even though he foolishly tries to deny it. He makes his living off of these "causes". What a hypocrite.

Take President Obama, he has had the highest campaign contributi*ons both in his 2008 election campaign and the present one of any other Presidenti*al Candidate in recent history. He is a hypocrite. Take the Democrats in Congress the majority have taken contributions from Wall Street. They are hypocrites. I don't hear Republicans denying they have taken contributions from Wall Street.

The protesters should be asking that the Presidents advisers that were employees of the very Wall Street firms that the protesters claim caused the financial crisis be replaced. The fact the President keeps these people and hired these people makes him a hypocrite.

Those employees were employed by Wall Street firms before, during and some after the crisis. Why would the President award them jobs in the White House instead of admonishing them and people like them? The very people OWS is against.

And, why are these protesters so blind to the real cause of the financial crisis which began under the Clinton Administration. The Administration in power when the first subprime bank bailout occured? The laws passed by both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses are what allowed this to happen. The welfare state ideology of the liberals was one huge cause of the housing crisis.

I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. I am sick of this B-it

Wow-totally agreed. As do many people at least in my little area of the country!

 

[slotplayer]

Take President Obama, he has had the highest campaign contributi*ons both in his 2008 election campaign and the present one of any other Presidenti*al Candidate in recent history..

Carter, Reagan and Bush 41 never took a campaign contrib. The only money used for election was the $2 check box donation on the tax form, so I heard.

I'll take the 1990's economy over the one we had this last decade and certainly the one we have now.

I find it best not to side with any idelogy.

 

[footdr]

Carter, Reagan and Bush 41 never took a campaign contrib. The only money used for election was the $2 check box donation on the tax form, so I heard.

I'll take the 1990's economy over the one we had this last decade and certainly the one we have now.

I find it best not to side with any idelogy.

I agree, but I would take the 1990-1991 economy.(it was a fair time in regard to paying Physicians for their services). I have my own ideology and I think I fit the definition of a "Centrist" as I basically look at each situation on its own merits. However, there are more positions on the Republicans side that I agree with then what has become a radical progressive Democratic Party. Mind you, I also disagree with radical Progressives on many many issues.

To be honest, although he probably can't win, I love the writings and the political positions of Ron Paul.