Police evict protesters

[tbubster]

Take this fight to washington.That is where you will bring about change.Think about it do you really think protesting the banks and wall street will get the money out of it?With there being so many protesters on videos saying they voted for obama and even though he has faild in what he said he would do,they are going to vote for him again.What in the world makes you think he will not take money from wallstreet and the supper ubber rich.What in the world makes you think he would sign any bill that made it harder for him to raise more money to run his campgain with.What reason does he have to not take their money when he knows so many will vote for him anyway.How many of the protesters or middle class are going to those 35,000 dollar a plate fundraisers??????For that matter why do you think anyone in congress would vote for a bill that makes raising money harder.I mean if you are willing to vote for them anyway.

And that goes for Both sides.You see congress has made it real easy for the money to find its way into their campgains..Do the protesters really think that if you leave the same people who made the laws that allowed the money to enter into it that they will not just pass new laws doing the same?????

The protesters say they want to take back washington well the only real way to do this is to go to washington not wall street.Leave the same players in the game and they will find a way to play the game the same way they always have.

Protesting wallstreet gives the goons in washington no reason to change the laws that benifit them.Doing the same thing you have always done will get you the same thing you always got.Letting the same people that have passed laws that have made your life harder will get you more laws that will make you life even harder.If you listen to the protesters there are millions of people here in america that support them.In all those people there are none that are trust worthy enough to send to washington and not let the money decide how they vote.If that is the case then this protest is for nothing at all.Because they will never get the money out of washington.

 

[greg334]

Take colleges for one.We hear this alot it cost to much.Yet one of the things the protesters are protesting about is higher pay for college professors.None of the protesters can see that when professors pay goes up every year so will the cost of college.I get it though because we can pay the professors all they are worth because the government is now paying for that free college degree.

Sorry but I side with them on this issue. The government doesn't pay for much, and nothing is free, the students carry an unfair burden of debt in order to get an education from a public supported college or university and the professors salaries are unjustified.

The problem is the government's paying these institutions through grants and budgets and this opens the door for less teaching and more money to those who should not be making $200k a year to teach three or four times a week.

 

[tbubster]

Sorry but I side with them on this issue. The government doesn't pay for much, and nothing is free, the students carry an unfair burden of debt in order to get an education from a public supported college or university and the professors salaries are unjustified.

The problem is the government's paying these institutions through grants and budgets and this opens the door for less teaching and more money to those who should not be making $200k a year to teach three or four times a week.

Did you not understand what I said?One of the very things they are protesting is higher pay for professors.They seem to not understand that a person who only teaches a few times a week and makes 150,000 to 200,000 a year is one of the very reasons why college cost so much.yet they think that professors should be paid more.It is a self defeating agrument.

Also how is it you want the dept of education done away with yet you agree that college should be free.Because if you listen to the protesters that is one thing they keep saying,College is a right and it should be provided to them by the government.

 

[Pilgrim]

The cost of college would come down considerably if these professors would just spend a normal work week in the classroom teaching. Instead, we have too many classes being taught by graduate assistants that can barely speak English.

The costs for a college education have been increasing totally out of proportion with normal inflation, and a lot of that is due to the lottery scholarships in so many states. More of that money becomes available every year, and the colleges just jack up tuition accordingly.

Regarding student debt and student loans - it's their choice to incur that debt, and it's a really bad idea. Granted, it's a concept being sold to them by the schools and the US Govt and it's a prime example of predatory lending at its worst.

What exacerbates the situation is that so many of these kids pile up $100K in student loans getting a major in "Underwater Basket Weaving" and are outraged when they can't find a job after they graduate. Whatever happened to working your way through college? Oops, that's right - there aren't any jobs because "Hope & Change" gave us an unemployment rate in the mid-teens. Never mind - once "the rich" start paying their fair share Barack Hussein Obama will start spreading the wealth around and everything will be OK.

 

[davekc]

It is that reason and about 100 others as to why the Federal Government shouldn't even be involved in education.

 

[BigWheeler]

The problem is simple both for goverment and for Americans personally. Live with in your means. Spend what you have,and not what you borrow. Protesters seem to think that money is the answer, if you can not manage what you have and not willing to work for it,then why should anyone else pay for you,including our broke #** government that feeds off us that actually do pay taxes. Personal responsibility, what a notion.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[greg334]

Did you not understand what I said?One of the very things they are protesting is higher pay for professors.They seem to not understand that a person who only teaches a few times a week and makes 150,000 to 200,000 a year is one of the very reasons why college cost so much.yet they think that professors should be paid more.It is a self defeating agrument.

I heard but the problem is the salaries are only part of the issue of the cost, the other part is the fact that it is subsidized through our tax money and they, the college or university can compete for top paying students. Ever wonder why a college chases foreign students?

Also how is it you want the dept of education done away with yet you agree that college should be free.Because if you listen to the protesters that is one thing they keep saying,College is a right and it should be provided to them by the government.

Department of Education has zero to do with the issue at hand, they are not "the" source of money that I'm talking about, the States and Feds both are setup to funnel money to these schools in different way.

I am also not saying school should be free, it should be affordable but more importantly it should be accessible to those who the schools is supposed to serve - the public which directly it serves, be it a city or state. The "right" is built into the charter of the school with many of the public institutions, for example U of M has the obligation to accept students from the state FIRST and then if they can accept students from other parts of the country and from foreign lands but you have a point system that is used to determine who gets in and who doesn't. That said, if they are saying free, then maybe we should address the cost of the administration down to the cost of acquisitions of the school to pad their assets to find out why we need to have a $200k education for something that would never pay the person back in 4 years.

The costs for a college education have been increasing totally out of proportion with normal inflation, and a lot of that is due to the lottery scholarships in so many states. More of that money becomes available every year, and the colleges just jack up tuition accordingly.

This is what I'm driving at.

 

[sparkle8859]

We don't want bigger we want better!

So the protesters get their way.The rich the corporations and anybody else this new better form of government decides makes to much now has to start paying more to the government.To pay for that house that college degree that healthcare.That high paying job that the protesters keep telling us is a RIGHT.That is a bigger government.Now take that same government they are paying for those things that you all(protesters) keep telling us is a right.So they get to say what size house you get,What doctors you get to go to what colleges and class you get.After all they are paying for it RIGHT.So not only do we have government more involved with private companys but now this "better government" is also more involved in our personal lifes.Also This new "better government" gets to decide how much money is enough for you to make every year befor you have to start paying them alot more if not all after you hit your limit.How in gods name is this better and not bigger.

Take colleges for one.We hear this alot it cost to much.Yet one of the things the protesters are protesting about is higher pay for college professors.None of the protesters can see that when professors pay goes up every year so will the cost of college.I get it though because we can pay the professors all they are worth because the government is now paying for that free college degree.

College protests focus on faculty pay, Wall St. | SignOnSanDiego.com

How does a smaller government equal ANARCHY?You see that has been a liberal talking point for years also.Why is it you keep feeling the need to call out republicans??????Do you not know how the vote to bail out the banks went down?also if this is really the Issue you all have why did it take three years for the protesters to get mad enough to do anything about it?????????????????Do you not know who signed the bill deregulating the banks?Calling it "A great day for americans a day all americans can Celebrate in. NAFTA,the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.Which allowed china to not only join the WTO but opened the doors to millions of american jobs being moved to china?Do you know who signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 and how it allowed groups like acorn to sue banks for not making enough low income loans.Do you know whos name is on lawsuits against banks for not making these loans????I will give you a hint it was not a republican.Yet you keep point to republicans??????????????And we are the sheep that dont know any better.

You see no where in the Constitution do you find the word happiness.Thats not the governments job it is your job to make you happy.

The conversation has not changed.Is the protest bringing about more jobs?Is it forcing the banks to talk about lending to companys so they can hire more people?Is it forcing the government to work together to help create jobs?The answer is no.Unless you mean Obamas jobs bill?Well thats not new now is it?He already did that plan once only with twice the money.What is going to happen when that money runs out like it did last time?Never mind the fact that he is the only one talking about it not even the democrats are listening to him.Tell yourself all you want the conversation has changed but you are lieing to yourself.

As far as the media goes well funny thing there Glen Beck is the only one who I have ever heard or read that says I dont want you to take my word for it I want you to do your own research and see for yourselfs.

Obamas plan did work! 1/3 of that stimulate went to extending the bush tax cuts. the rest was given to the states to keep them going. See if a house has been foreclosed on then the state doesn't get the property taxes so the state now has a income problem.Now that the money has run out states are in a financial crises again.
First off we are asking people to pay there fair share. The tax rate is the lowest it has ever been. G.W. bush told us that lowering taxes for the rich would create jobs, and that in 10 years it would go back to what it was. 10 years were up 1 year ago. now lets think about this logically for a second. first you have to separate the owner and ceo of a corporation and the business its self. now how many people do you think that the ceo himself employs? maid gardener chauffeur nanny's. lets just say he owns 3 houses with 12 people on staff. that's a total of 36 people. owners and ceos dont create jobs the business does. See the difference? So patriotic when we go to war but don't touch my money when the country is about to go under.
now Bill clinton signed those bill! Nafta I didn't agree with.when the bank fire wall(glass-steagall) came down it was inside of the budget bill for the next president.SNEAKY SNEAKY! Look up Glass steagall.Who wrote it,why was it put into place who wrote the legislation it bring it down?

Now hears a dirty little secret about Bill Clinton that the dems dont want you to know. Ready? We hold him up as a great pres because he streamlined government and balanced the budget. BUT the reason he did that was because of the republicans! WHAT? Remember PAY AS YOU GO? They forced him to do just that. Now hears a question for you,If republicans want smaller government, and a balanced budget why did they repeal pay as you go when G.W. bush came into office? Pay as you go did just that. That shows you right there that the republicans dont really care about budgets and how the country actually works they care about the power and the money. When people show you who they are you should believe them.

Now you brought up Obamas jobs plan.The difference between rep and dems on this is reps want to lower taxes on business and dems want to spend on construction and lower the tax rate. Have you ever lost your job? Been so broke that you were afraid of getting kicked out of your house? I have. And when I got a job do you think I went out and bought a bunch of stuff? NO I started catching up on my bills. Once I was caught up then I stashed a little away in savings.Then and only then did I go and buy little treats for my self. It took me 3 months before I could do that.Don't you think the rest of the country would do the same thing? In essence what the reps are saying is that they want the cost burden of paying out wages and having more product being made without more people buying there stuff for 3 months put on the business. Do you really think any business would do that? With Obamas plan the government would shoulder that burden.People would get back to work first with construction.Then as construction got under way the construction supply chain would see an increase and they would then hire more people to keep up with demand. Then as those people became comfortable again they would the go buy mamma those new dishes that she want. See how that works? DANG COMMON SENSE!

I never said smaller government equaled anarchy. I said that no rules equaled Anarchy. I'm all for smaller government ! But lets look at the facts. The banking industry was deregulated and it crashed. The housing market was deregulated and it crashed. how much more do you need? Thats like saying you want the transportation industry deregulated.No speed limits no hours of service rules no dot inspections on trucks. How many people do you think will get hurt? There are dishonest people in this world and its niaive to think that if you deregulate anything people will just do the right thing. Yes some of the regulations are stupid. But there there to protect the people that is what government is there for.

 

[davekc]

Now you brought up Obamas jobs plan.The difference between rep and dems on this is reps want to lower taxes on business and dems want to spend on construction and lower the tax rate. Have you ever lost your job? Been so broke that you were afraid of getting kicked out of your house? I have. And when I got a job do you think I went out and bought a bunch of stuff? NO I started catching up on my bills. Once I was caught up then I stashed a little away in savings.Then and only then did I go and buy little treats for my self. It took me 3 months before I could do that.Don't you think the rest of the country would do the same thing? In essence what the reps are saying is that they want the cost burden of paying out wages and having more product being made without more people buying there stuff for 3 months put on the business. Do you really think any business would do that? With Obamas plan the government would shoulder that burden.People would get back to work first with construction.Then as construction got under way the construction supply chain would see an increase and they would then hire more people to keep up with demand. Then as those people became comfortable again they would the go buy mamma those new dishes that she want. See how that works? DANG COMMON SENSE!

.

I think you may be misinformed. The democrats want to increase taxes, not reduce them. They want a increase in the top tier in addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That is why this super-committee can't get a deal done. I am not even including the round of tax increases that are coming through the Obamacare bill. Those kick in 2014 for most of them. All kinds of arguments to support both sides, although the concept of taxing your way to prosperity has never been realized.
Even Clinton and Obama both say you shouldn't be raising taxes right now.


The problem with that jobs plan is that you are borrowing to do it. We are currently at 15 trillion now. Basically tapped out plain and simple. "Shovel ready projects" through the first stimulus was a disaster. Spending millions to create just a handful of jobs isn't going to get it done. Borrowing more money to get out of a mess will put us in a deeper hole. I think personally we would be better off to go after current energy sources and use private industry carry the cost. They have plenty of cash on the sidelines and are ready to spend it. Renewable energy right now is a waste.
Just look at Solyndra and the list of other failures.

 

[tbubster]

Obamas plan did work! 1/3 of that stimulate went to extending the bush tax cutsYou should look and see who voted for it and who did not.There were more DEMS that voted for extending the cuts then republicans.. the rest was given to the states to keep them going. See if a house has been foreclosed on then the state doesn't get the property taxes so the state now has a income problem.Now that the money has run out states are in a financial crises again.
First off we are asking people to pay there fair shareHow are they not paying their fair share?Please explain to me how someone who with all the tax breaks pays 10% of say 10 million dollars is paying less of a share then someone paying say 15% of 160,000?. The tax rate is the lowest it has ever been. G.W. bush told us that lowering taxes for the rich would create jobs, and that in 10 years it would go back to what it was. 10 years were up 1 year agonow lets think about this logically for a second. first you have to separate the owner and ceo of a corporation and the business its self. now how many people do you think that the ceo himself employs? maid gardener chauffeur nanny's. lets just say he owns 3 houses with 12 people on staff. that's a total of 36 people. owners and ceos dont create jobs the business does. See the difference? Twist it anyway you want without the owners and CEO their would be no company.So patriotic when we go to war but don't touch my money when the country is about to go under.
now Bill clinton signed those bill! Nafta I didn't agree with.when the bank fire wall(glass-steagall) came down it was inside of the budget bill for the next president.SNEAKY SNEAKY!REALLY?? Maybe you should do somemore research.Bill clinton knew what he was signing otherwise why would he call it a great day for america?Also he wanted it.Thats funny right there though I have never heard nor read anywhere that it was attached to a budget bill,Would like to know your source for that info please..Yes republicans wrote it.You should look adnd see what Clinton did with the PEN he used to sign it.One hint "Citibank" Look up Glass steagall.Who wrote it,why was it put into place who wrote the legislation it bring it down?

Now hears a dirty little secret about Bill Clinton that the dems dont want you to know. Ready? We hold him up as a great pres because he streamlined government and balanced the budgetClinton never balanced the budget!!What he did was made it look that way on paper.He borrowed the money from Social Security to do it.Now even a first grader knows when you borrow money from grandpa to pay off grandma that nothing is balanced.. BUT the reason he did that was because of the republicans! WHAT? Remember PAY AS YOU GO? They forced him to do just that. Now hears a question for you,If republicans want smaller government, and a balanced budget why did they repeal pay as you go when G.W. bush came into office?Again you should do your research on that also.The republicans repealed nothing.You can think it was a law put into effect that required a repeal but fact is it expired.Also in 2006 when the democrats took controll of both the house and the senate they adopted the pay as you go rule.Yet with most big spending bills the democrats seen fit to waive the paygo rule such is the case for Obamas economic stimulus bill.In orther words they chose to keep spending with out a way to pay for it.Oh thats right they had a way to pay for it CHINA. Pay as you go did just that. That shows you right there that the republicans dont really care about budgets and how the country actually works they care about the power and the money. When people show you who they are you should believe them. You are right however YOU should not take their word for it but look at the voteing records and see what they really do and not just what they say they do.Your idea of republicans killing pay as you go shows they dont care is dead in the water when you look and see what really happend and how the democrats waive it on every large spending bill.

Now you brought up Obamas jobs plan.The difference between rep and dems on this is reps want to lower taxes on business and dems want to spend on construction and lower the tax rate. Have you ever lost your job? Been so broke that you were afraid of getting kicked out of your house? I have. And when I got a job do you think I went out and bought a bunch of stuff? NO I started catching up on my bills. Once I was caught up then I stashed a little away in savings.Then and only then did I go and buy little treats for my self. It took me 3 months before I could do that.Don't you think the rest of the country would do the same thing? In essence what the reps are saying is that they want the cost burden of paying out wages and having more product being made without more people buying there stuff for 3 months put on the business. Do you really think any business would do that? With Obamas plan the government would shoulder that burden.Who shoulders the burden of the government when they spend spend spend.The American People.People would get back to work first with construction.Then as construction got under way the construction supply chain would see an increase and they would then hire more people to keep up with demand. Then as those people became comfortable again they would the go buy mamma those new dishes that she want. See how that works? DANG COMMON SENSE!This is the same way the first one was going to work also.Yet it did not.You said it yourself they ran out of money and are now faced with the same issues as befor the first stimulus.DANG COMMON SENSE

I never said smaller government equaled anarchy. I said that no rules equaled Anarchy. I'm all for smaller government ! But lets look at the facts. The banking industry was deregulated and it crashed. The housing market was deregulated and it crashed. how much more do you need? Thats like saying you want the transportation industry deregulated.No speed limits no hours of service rules no dot inspections on trucks. How many people do you think will get hurt? There are dishonest people in this world and its niaive to think that if you deregulate anything people will just do the right thing. Yes some of the regulations are stupid. But there there to protect the people that is what government is there for.

you never answered the question of why if this movement is against all government and big money yet look the other way when its the democrats.The banks got bailed out with loans.The government is being paid back with intrest.This white house has made hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to companys with ties to the Democrat party that have gone under,Even changing the laws to adjust the laons so Obamas big money backers get paid back befor the tax payers do in some cases the tax payers lose all the money the companys got.And you all ignore that.You also never answerd how it is you think the protesters will change anything when you dont challange the law makers.Like I said as long as Obama and the democrats know they can do what they want and still get re-elected then they have no reason to change the way they do things.You say you want the money out of it yet you have no problem with a guy that has pledged to raise a billion dollars to get relected with.If you do your own research with open eys to clinton/citibank you will see they led the push for the bank deregulation.Now some of those that led the company during the down turn are now Obama advisors.But you are right it is the republicans that are killing america.

Thats bill clinton signing the gramm leach bliliy act not a budget bill.