Rush Limbaugh says Occupy Wall Street is an anti-Semitic conspiracy. Is that true? Here's a recording of his radio talk show: Web Link

If you get a call to contribute to Anna Eschoo's telephone Town Hall, you will be 'interviewed" by a staff member and asked your concern. Watch what you say. If you have a question that is any way critical of or contrary to anything that Anna thinks or her party, you will not be on the program.

Disappointing that Anna is aligning herself with the dregs of our society.

@Terry:

Is it not a responsibility of a politician to defend the interests of the so-called "dregs" of society?

Not surprising .. Occupy Wall Street has no message .. just like Anna Eshoo .. so why wouldn't she "identify" with her own kind?

Anna supported the relaxing of home lending standards which help to create this mess. The protesters should be outside of her office.

Here come the Eshoo haters. They are so frustrated that this is a blue district, in fact a solid blue area and they can't stand it!

The majority leader of the House in November promised Americans all he would work on was "jobs, jobs, jobs."

He has offered ZERO jobs bills.

He has allowed 7 votes on abortion bills, but no jobs bills.

There are 20 days left in this legislative session for the year (nice work, or lack thereof, if you can get it!)

Where are the jobs, Mr Boehner? You spent all day Thursday on another abortion bill, but have done nothing for jobs like you promised.

Where are the jobs, Mr Boehner?

Anna, you can help them. Just:
Make it illegal for government to require or encourage lending to any one.
Make it illegal for government to "rescue" any business. No one is too big to fail, Failure is the medicine that makes capitalism work.

Walter Wallis had a similar comment in another topic: "Make it illegal for government to require or encourage lending to any one."

"Government should NEVER tell banks whom they can lend to."

Walter Wallis wants big government out of banks, except government is the sole reason that our banking system works the way it does. Think of the run on banks back in the Great Depression.

As pointed out in the other occupy wall street topic:

""Government should NEVER tell banks..." Inane libertarian claptrap. America used to regulate banks and investment houses, keeping them separate and HEALTHY. The Glass–Steagall Act mostly kept the crazy gambling in check from 1933 to 1999. Upon repeal, it all went downhill.

77 bank failures this year, so far. 157 last year. 140 in 2009.

If you want your bank deposit to have Federal protection, banks require regulation. "Government should NEVER tell banks..." Pure poppycock. Tell us Walter, do you keep all your cash in a non-FDIC protected "bank"."

If our government is going to protect our bank system, the banks have to follow common sense regulations, lend fairly, no redlining or discrimination.

Bring back banking regulations. Bring back Glass Steagal.

@ Nil Nullum

No

Heck of a lot of unwarranted criticism of Anna Eshoo for doing the obvious, not to mention the right thing. The arrogance of the top 1% thinking they are be all end all human civilization - judging those not as wealthy as they are and passing sentence on the rest of the country that they should be down in the gutter and facing the same problems as those in the 3rd world is just plain unChristian, unAmerican and inhuman. I am really sick of people like that lying and bluffing to the American people about all the good they do, and the jobs they create .... it's just their own selfishness. It's OK to be somewhat selfish but a country cannot run based on selfishness and greed alone ... at least not a great one, but these folks really do not care if the country is great as long as they have theirs and can take what belongs to others ... and then turn around and blame it on them too.

>> Anna supported the relaxing of home lending standards which help to create this mess.

I think it is important to realize that is was not the relaxation of lending standards that created this mess, it was the deliberate and premeditated abuse of the banking system ... ie. bad actors ... criminals ... giving people loans that they could not afford because they could ship those loans out to other people who bought them based on fraudulent ratings.

Just because a loophole or gap in government or regulation makes something possible does not mean that the responsibility lenders have to their customers and institutions are gone or wiped out .... most of this was deliberate fraud by people who directly got money because they knew they were hidden from view and responsibility. In fact they are still abusing the system with bonuses and refusal to assist making the situation better.

If the government passes these laws it is most likely that it was done by lots of lobbying from corporations and financial institutions who probably even knew what was going to happen and told legislators that it was good for the economy, because that is what we have done in the last 20 years ... devised a series of untrue slogans and lies about tax cuts, job creators, de-regulation ... just about every major bullet point of the Republican party.

>> Is it not a responsibility of a politician to defend the interests of the so-called "dregs" of society?

Yes, and the Republicans take a statement like that and twist it so that 99% of people are the dregs of society which enables them to do anything they want with a clear conscience.

And it does seem to be the self-appointed responsibility of Republicans to identify and commit genocide on those that it rationalizes with its twisted values that deserve to live indefinitely in poverty or die.

If FDR had let the banks go under, would we still be without banks or would have American ingenuity re-opened banks with rational policies. With all the "protection" laws today, why are banks still going broke?

"With all the "protection" laws today, why are banks still going broke?"

As Clinton famously said: "it's the economy, st...."

Why? Clinton created 23 million jobs. Bush's last few months had job losses of 700,000 jobs PER MONTH.

Walter may be the only libertarian that doesn't want banks regulated in some fashion.

"Run on the bank" is a very ugly phrase to anyone who has money.

She voted for the bank bailout.

We will not allow corrupt politicians to co-opt the occupy movement.

Interesting editorial... Be informed!

Web Link

The crisis argument was used on Congresspeople by the BUSH White House to pass the bailout. One can hardly blame Eshoo for voting for it, most of the Congress did, and they felt they had to, without any explanation or accountability ... at least they refused the first version of it. Just like Iraq. The Bush White House stongarmed the country, while the loudmouth fascists showed up on message boards all over talking about the free market, liberty, and all the other words stupid people substitute for information and understanding. Very few had the courage or facts not to vote for the bailout, just like very few ... 1 I think had the guts to vote against Iraq. Be careful who you all corrupt. you might not like getting a really corrupt person as a Congress representative.

I love this movement just like Anna. I want to have my loans forgiven. So what if i promised to repay them. I also want the government to start paying my grocery bills. And my cell phone and cable TV bills. I also want to be let off my jobs for days on end so I can join this protest (and stop my daily showering). I want all income to be leveled out in this country, or as candidate Obama told Joe the Plumber, have my income "spread around" so that everybody makes the same amount of money. Mugabe followed the same business model in Zimbabwe and it's worked out so well that we should import it here.

I love that the Democrats are cracked fully open about who they are, what they support, what they believe.

Keep it up!!! Americans are watching who flocks with whom!

"Be Informed": Nice link.

This is why Reid hasn't even let any "jobs bill" from Obama come up for a vote..he knows that almost ANY Democrat up for re-election who votes for that job killer will lose the re-election campaign...so he is blocking the vote ( not the Republicans, as is the propoganda myth constantly put forth by our Chief Propogandist).

Intelligent Democrats are running as hard as they can away from Obama and all the ones in his Administration...Intelligent ones are distancing from the OWS rabble..they know that OWS do not represent the majority of Americans who get up every day, work, care for themselves and their families.

Luckily, Americans are paying attention finally.

Vote smart 2012.

"This is why Reid hasn't even let any "jobs bill" from Obama come up for a vote."

Wrong.

It was voted on THIS WEEK. Didn't hear that on Fox, did you? Web Link

It won: 50-49

Republicans filibustered it. It got 50 votes, enough to start debate if the republicans chose not to filibuster.

Not a SINGLE republican voted to even discuss or debate the issue.

"job killer"???? It's a centrist plan using a bunch of ideas that even republicans have supported in the past.

The party of NO shows the world they will filibuster even the mere discussion of helping middle class working Americans.

"Americans are watching who flocks with whom!"

Yes, we are.

Read the polls.

Obama's a Wall Street plutocrat.

I hope she joins the crowds soon. Let us get someone else to do her "job".

Anna Eshoo voted to repeal Glass-Steagall:

Web Link

when she voted for:

S-900/ Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:
Web Link

In addition, S-900 resulted in the Federal Government having no control over Credit Default Swaps (CDSs), a financial "instrument" that has done more to destabilize the financial system than any thing that has yet been devised by Wall Street.

Maybe Anna Eshoo can explain to the "protesters" why she voted for S-900, and if she thinks that her contribution deserves a little attention by the "Occupiers"?

You go Anna!

The crooked Wall Street investment bankers who fleeced the whole world and their cronies in the corrupt securities ratings firms (who were paid to give AAA ratings to junk mortgage bonds) should all be behind bars with Bubba.

No soap on a rope for them either.

Is this the same Anna Eshoo who voted for the budget "compromise" in August (i.e. caved in to Republican demands along with half of the other democrats?

Web Link

Good joke, Anna.

"It has become clear that politicians in the United States cannot regulate themselves and have become the exclusive representatives of corporations, unions and the very wealthy who spend vast sums of money on political campaigns to influence the candidates’ decisions and ensure their reelection year after year."

Web Link

Isn't there ANYONE more capable of effectively representing this district?

Anyone?

I'd vote for Bernie Sanders.

> Isn't there ANYONE more capable of effectively representing
> this district?

Is this a trick question?

I would vote for Nayeli

Hee hee hee..no big shock, but CHINA supports the OWS also.
Web Link


Let's see..on the OWS side

1) Fascists and Communists (Web Link
2) Bums
3) Many Democrats including Pelosi, Eshoo and, of course, Obama

Calling for "more govt regulation and growth" as the cure, though this is just gas on the fire ( another 5% growth in our govt spending THIS YEAR Alone even with Repubs fighting like crazy to hold it back. Can you imagine if there were still NOBODY top fight it like the last 2 years, when it went up over 20%?)
Web Link

Umm..ok...where do YOU stand? Remember the old adage about birds of a feather..not to be confused with chickens coming home to roost ( though they are.

Cain and the Tea Party are looking better and better. The contrast is great.

Cain and the Tea Party is funded by the Billionaire Koch brothers. They don't believe in Global Warming. Actually they don't believe in Science in general.

Congress blaming Wall Street and supporting those that do. What about Freddie Mae and Fanny Mac? She is in congress so why doesn't she rid us of people like Barney Frank. He supported all the loans that the GSEs made and we are out the 300+ billion they have lost thus far. Why is he still in charge of a banking committee. If he were a corporate bigwig and was partially responsible for such a huge loss, as a minimum he would be fired or perhaps in jail. Why doesn't Eshoo do something to get rid of Frank? Jobs are created by corporations not the government. Eschoo is supposed to support Silicon Valley and the folks that provide funding, like the banks and the VCs.

The real problem is that we now have more people who don't want to work than people who have a work ethic - the kinds of people who built this country. The OWSers believe in entitlement - why work or actually produce something when you can get it from the people who actually worked for their money? "Spread the wealth!" No matter what kind of person you are. It's very sad. I came from a very poor background (not to mention physical and emotional abuse) - and worked hard in school, against all odds - to succeed. I am not rich, but everywhere I look, others want what I have - and they are doing nothing. I just don't get the sense of entitlement that we have embraced.

"even with Repubs fighting like crazy to hold (spending) back"

Repubs have never held back spending.

Clinton cut spending and balanced the budget, even gave us a surplus. Bush doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion, giving us our first trillion dollar deficit, at the same time he gave us job losses of 700,00 per month at the end of his terms.

Repubs only want to cut when they are out of power. When in power they spend like fools. Dems are party of tax and spend. Repubs are party of BORROW (from China) and SPEND. Who was the last Repub to veto a spending bill? Wasn't Bush - it's been at least 20 years since a Repub has vetoed a spending bill.

Occupiers are looking for jobs, for fairness in the tax code and fairness in political donations - get corporations out of the political ownership process. What evidence do you have they as a group are looking for "entitlement"?

If people don't know what the MESSAGE (Capital letters)from OWS is, then you aren't paying attention.

I believe it's pointless to blame this on the Democrats or the Republicans. They both had a hand in the current mess. Blaming each party just makes the situation worse. I wish there was a third option for who to vote for, maybe something in the middle.

The Tea Party was originated by opposition to the bail-out of Wall Street. OCCUPY was started by a distrust of Wall Street. So we have the extreme Right and the extreme Left both upset with Wall Street. Does this not typify the malcontent and lack of direction in the United States today. Can't we somehow get together and solve our problems and not just call other people names

I know plenty of protesters who work MORE than 40 hrs week, at various professions. They also are active in community work, so they see many people suffering at all levels. Sure, maybe not on most of the hallowed streets of Shallow Alto, but everywhere else. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The financial industry now makes up 40% of the US GDP. They've outsourced our jobs, merged companies for "efficiencies" -- ie layoffs, decimated most pension rights, fired older workers and enriched themselves while sborting down the stock market and our retirement accounts.

Go to the White House petition site at whitehouse.gov/petitions and make your feelings known on refinancing the mortgages, corporate "personhood" and science in education and Social Security.

The US shouldn't have a Buy It Now button for the big business lobbyists.

C'mon..."fell short in a procedural hurdle?" Bad journalism. Why not tell it like it was: BLOCKED BY A REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER.

Good for Anna Eshoo. The imbalance of wealth in this country has gotten out of hand. Don't blame it on the government. It's old fashioned personal and corporate greed.

Terry, what do you mean dregs of society, this is The United States of America, by your definition our founding fathers were dregs.
Get a life, or at least go count your money.

Web Link

I HOPE ALL THE REPUBLICANS GO SEE "THE MARGIN CALL"

Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore & Jeremy Irons and others

Re corporate "personhood" -

This idea is a legal invention that's apparently a great convenience along with the limited liability idea. But clearly it has gotten away. AFAIK, the "corporate person" idea is not present in the Constitution anywhere but was developed in the century or so after the US was established.

So since it's not in the Constitution, why can't Congress just make a law defining it as it sees fit?

The Court decision that spending money is a form of free speech allowed corporations the privileges of rich individuals with respect to political action though they cannot vote. It would be constructive to eliminate most of the Pay-To-Play political system in Washington with such a law if an Amendment isn't possible.

That system is responsible for the US Banana Republic that has always been with us, reinforcing cycles of political and economic upheaval. In the past, especially after WWII the US could just pay for the inefficiency, the misallocation, and the corruption of the Pay-To-Play system. Those days are over.

Our Constitution has a Jefferson's Wall between religion and the state, so why not between private money and the state? Was it a deal to include the future core Confederate states in the new country? Did their oligarchy require that corruption to survive? They were a different society and culture area that arguably should never have been part of the new USA. ????

Today multinational corporations nominally here are not American companies in interests, main assets, increasingly IP, and ownership. Yet they get to do Pay-To-Play in Washington anyway. Pay-To-Play is an open pathway for foreign influence directly to the center of US government.

When you start regulating "For the Public God" can you blame politicians for defining "Good" as it suits their own ends?: The real answer is to keep politicians away from trade and let the market rule.

Walter, I know it was a slip of the keyboard, but I LOVED it..that is the basic problem, everyone trying to decide what the public GOD is ( public good), which coincidentally is the "good" they want to use your money and their power for..

I agree...stop the govt from interfering in private market, in private decisions
Example 1) like the interference in awarding mortgages in the name of increasing diversity done by Frank-Dodd through Fannie Mae, and exploited by ACORN, as when Barack Obama signed the lawsuit as part of ACORN against Citibank to force them to give mortgages to high risk people...hence the match that lit the foreclosure wildfire.

Example 2) The recent "financial regulations" which now forbid local banks from making local decisions about who will continue to receive credit and loans and who won't..now DC rules decide that, and guess what? Fewer loans, less revolving credit..more dead businesses.

Get the govt out of our private lives....let the individual or corporations fail as they will or succeed as they will. Let evolution work.

John: You are correct. Both the right and the left is upset at the markets..However, they have opposite solutions. The right ( Tea Party) trusts us as individuals, and believes we all have the adult right to make our own choices and live by them. We want the govt out of our way. We are not dependent children, nor do we want our tax money used to support failures. The way to succeed is to learn from failure, and bailing out individuals or banks or businesses does nothing at all for the evolution of learning and growing.

Simple, really....if you rescue your kid from his bad choices, will he ever learn to make good ones?

The left, the WSO, want ever more bad parenting in the form of govt taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't.

No..bad choice. Interferes with the evolution of mankind and society. Reward failure or bad behavior..you get more of it. No more.

Perspective, Walter, and other free marketeeers should see the documentary "Inside Job". The Great Recession was all about Crony Capitalism on Wall Street.

Back-scratching between corrupt investment bankers and crooked securities ratings firm. Get the Government out indeed.

No regulation mean the wolves "guard" all the sheep. Free market ideology is a good cover story for predatory behavior on a gigantic scale.

This thing is a mess! How could the government is not part of the problem? "Forget Wall Street, Protestors Should “Occupy Congress” -yahoo..

Acorn and Obama caused the financial meltdown of 2008.

Riiiiight.

Like blaming Obama for TARP (a Bush action.)

Really hard to find things to attack the guy now that he showed you his birth certificate.

The same week he got bin Laden.

both parties are awful. both are responsible for our economic mess.

OWS is an outcry against both parties. not very articulate. nonetheless, the underlying economic reasons for the growth of OWS can be found at:

Web Link

IMO it's wrong and disingenuous for Eshoo to 'claim' OWS for herself. Eshoo is part of the problem, whereas OWS is a stumbling first step toward a solution.

I am all for limited Gov't. But I have a problem when Big Banks use the Gov't to reach into my pocket and steal from me. Meanwhile, all these scumbags in Congress try to pretend that nothing has happened. Check the voting logs, you know who you are:

Web Link

You Libertarians should stand down until this problem gets redressed.

The numbers of people at OWS in most locations are tiny-the media fails to note that. And the faces are almost all white-the media also fails to note that although that was their biggest criticism about the Tea Party. They also don't seem to get the socialist signs and slogans onto the TV.

Anna, if you endorse OWS dig out one of your old tie dyed tee shirts and join in! Don't just cheer class warfare from the sidelines.

OWS gets far MORE support than the tea party.

Look at the polls in the last month.

For a "refreshing" change of pace, watch tonight's GOP debate. It'll be the last one with Herman "imagine no more pizza" Cain in the lead.

Once the polls show Herman's decline and he becomes the GOP's latest crater, Herman will be back on his book tour. Then?

Latest odds show Herman as the frontrunner, slightly ahead of Newt, to don spandex and make the first appearance on Dancing with the Stars.

You read it here first.

@ Here comes:

It is easy to get "support" when the group has no clear goals.

'Here come'...

By the established rules of liberals and progressives your disrespectful statements about Cain mark you a racist for sure. And there are also more than a few racists in OWS if you look at some of the interviews and signs.

But you may have missed that if you are watching only CNN or MSNBC.

Mike: Cain is the latest leader in the GOP primary merry-go-round. Thus far, it's been a game of musical chairs with a new leader every month or so. His 999 tax "plan" raises taxes on the poor and middle class and cuts taxes for billionaires. So he's toast and is the next to cycle out.

I choose him over Newt to be the next republican on Dancing with the Stars, following convicted felon, ex republican whip Tom Delay.

How on earth do you get racism out of that?

Perhaps you misinterpreted the Herman "imagine no more pizza" Cain comment.

Web Link

Pretty cute skit for his old company. Love the Godfather of Soul reference in the intro. Not bad as song parody goes. Though I'm not sure a song about world peace is the one I'd choose to mock, to each his own.

@ Here come:

Web Link

Like I said, it is easy to "support" a group that has no specific set of goals.

Everyone is against "greed" -- but that isn't a goal or even a specific enough reason to join a "protest movement."

After all, there is plenty of "greed" among people who feel entitled to take something that they didn't work for just because someone else has it.

Change the social structure,linmit super rich's desire to gain more, increase government control on the social structure,such as limit the number of jobs going overseas,limit the power of lots of useless laws,curb countless sensenless lawsuits, limit super rich by using political power,limit campaign contribution from riches...limit his power.

@ change:

Those are interesting concepts....but they are not specific vices or solutions.

Someone on another message board was complaining that the wealthy inherit their wealth instead of work for it. While this might be true in some cases, my response was still: SO WHAT?

Why do people think that they have a right to things that they did not work for?

If people want these protests to amount to something, then they need to figure out what it is that they are upset about (such as jobs going overseas) and then protest at the feet of those who have the power to do something about it.

Apple manufactures iPhones, iPods and iPads in China for a reason. What is that reason? It would be silly and disingenuous to just say that Steve Jobs & Co. were "greedy." The real reasons are much more complex.

Due to regulation, manufacturing costs, taxation and favorable trade policies, it is much more cost effective for Apple (a business that is driven by cost/demand) to manufacture those things overseas. If they were made here, Apple suggested that the price of your iPads would balloon to $1500 each.

So, how do we get companies like Apple to make their products here and create jobs in THIS country?

It will take a change of specific policies in Washington. So, I would urge the protesters to move their protests to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and just up the road to Capitol Hill.

I have seen plenty of interviews of the protesters, but I haven't seen many who seem to understand Macroeconomics or can recite any specific problems or goals associated with this movement. There are plenty of fringe groups behind it (everyone from regular people to the Nazi/Socialist parties to Huge Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

If it doesn't come up with a legitimate set of offenses and remedies for them, then this movement will continue in objective obscurity.

Not to me,Nayeli.No nayeli.

Our politicians are hijacked by the super-rich.

Here comes Nayeli from another thread about OWS, telling us they are wrong and they should protest where he wants them, about what he wants them to protest about.

Nayeli: you don't get it. They are out there. You are inside watching the GOP debate. Sorry they're not specific enough for you.

"then this movement will continue in objective obscurity. "

Obscurity? It's obscure on Fox, but it's in every paper and on every other news outlet.

@ Here come:

First of all, I am a woman. :-)

Secondly: What are you ranting about? Please re-read my post before going about sputtering some "you just don't get it" rhetoric.

Your personal accusations against me border on delusion. I am not inside my house watching the GOP Debate. However, so what if I was? It is none of your business...and I wouldn't apologize if I were.

As for the "goals" of this group. I can't find a list where the people agree with one another other than the accusation that individuals working to make their businesses successful or those who inherited money from hard-working parents are somehow "greedy."

Yeah, this group is meandering into obscurity. Moreover, they are targeting the wrong people.

Again: you give advice for them after admitting you don't understand their purpose. Very clever.

Time will tell about obscurity. The tea party is not supported by 88% of Americans. Are they obscure?

What personal accusations are you talking about, other than the gender reference and your correction?

Your previous posts on an OWS thread here had you giving the same suggestions that they picket elsewhere about different grievances. In the above post you also recommend they move elsewhere. It is THEY who are protesting where THEY want to. YOU want them elsewhere protesting for YOUR grievances.

I find it odd that you offer unsolicited advice to a group in New York and around the world, yet apparently don't want to protest yourself.

Web Link

Only 22% support these protesters' "goals." The rest either disapprove or just don't know what any of those "goals" are. Accusations of "greed" is not a "goal."

BTW, I am not saying that the protesters don't have a right to protest. I am just saying that many either don't know specific reasons why they are there...or that they disagree with one another.

After all, there are plenty of arguments and fights going on between the protesters themselves. And, of course, I think that Washington politicians are a much better target for their ire than individuals working on Wall Street. Those individuals are simply working according to the rules set up by politicians in Washington.

Well .. it seems that Anna Eshoo is now supporting class warfare:

Web Link

When the violence starts, what will she say then? She doesn't support violence, or will she "support the rioters"?

During the 1960s and '70s there were a lot of riots in the DC area. Maybe Anna should look up old copies of the Washington Post for "16th Street Riots" (summer of 1968). Will she support people burning block after block of the DC area .. or what about the burning of downtown Palo Alto? Will Eshoo support that?

OCW = Confluence of lesser mortals, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

In this *absolute must-view* Bloomberg interview, Wall St dissident Nassim Taleb explains what goal the OWS movement should have, and worries that for lack of a clear goal it could well devolve to class warfare.

Web Link

His message in a nutshell: bank compensation is effectively a multi-trillion dollar tax on citizens, and now that we've bailed out the banks (again, btw, this is *not* the first time), we have every the right & obligation to limit bankers to no more salary than other civil servants.

THERE'S THE MESSAGE TO GALVANIZE OWS & HAVE IT COME TO A GOOD END

The answer is simple - GIVE FAILURE A CHANCE!!!
You cannot have a capitalist system without failure. The marketplace is the ONLY honest arbiter of success. Three percent of our population are farmers, half of them growing political crops. Maybe 10% are in manufacturing, another 10% in distribution. Almost all the rest are parasites. [yep, me included]

The banking industry has 3,000 lobbyists on Capitol Hill, mainly serving the interests of the big banks, including the investment houses on Wall Street. These are the companies that nearly brought down the World economy with their bundles of bad mortgages hustled as securities and rated "AAA" by bought and paid for analysts at securities ratings firms on Wall Street.

Wall street Lobbyists: You are almost there..who did they lobby, who got the money to bail them out, who gets most of the lobby money? Electing folks who use our money to help their failure friends is what has to change. Lobbying is not the problem, corrupt govt is.

Dear "Free Market"..Cronyism is not capitalism. It is a marriage of govt control choosing who their buddies are and using our money to support failures. Capitalism lets evolution work..failures fail, winners win.

Many of us were screaming NOOOOOOO to TARP but the tide was too big from both Repubs and Democrats too afraid in that political climate to do the right thing and NOT BAIL OUT FAILURES. Had we NOT bailed out anyone, we would be in a lot better shape right now. Bankruptcies would have gone through, people would have adjusted and moved forward, and we wouldn't have become paralyzed by fear of a govt running slip-shod over our system.

By the way, check out who made the most money off the cronyism...you may be shocked.

Like kids who learn to take advantage of whatever system the parents have ( that's ok honey, you failed your school, we'll just pay for another one), we blew it up by rescuing failures from banks to auto. Like kids, the bailed out learn that they don't have to learn from their errors, they can "charm" ( buy) their way out of problems with cronyism.

Of course, the banks who were failing were responding to govt rules that gave them a Sophie's Choice of "make bad loans to get Fed backing or face the wrath of ACORN and not having Fed backing". Their job was and is to answer to their stockholders..they did what they had to and played by the new govt rules ( some of them). Others, like Wells Fargo, were able to resist, not having gotten onto the ACORN radar yet. Had govt NOT changed the rules of the game, the banks would have continued to give keys of houses only to those with skin in the game and a history of good credit, along with a proven job.

For real info, I recommend reading The Housing Boom and Bust by Sowell.

We agree on one thing..CRONYISM with anyone in a government power with the ability to use OUR money for THEIR goals ( usually related to THEIR power and THEIR pocketbooks)stinks. Let us fail or win on our own merits. Let economic evolution occur, and we all rise up.

@ Here comes:

You wrote: >>>> "I find it odd that you offer unsolicited advice to a group in New York and around the world, yet apparently don't want to protest yourself." <<<<

Wow. I don't protest with this group because I don't agree with much of the rhetoric coming out of it. A very vocal portion of these protesters are stereotyping individuals who work in banks and in Wall Street of being motivated by "greed" and only succeeding at the expense of others.

Anyone who has taken macroeconomics in college understands that businesses need for OTHERS to succeed in order for a business to be successful. After all, if people don't have money, they don't purchase that business's goods or services.

And, of course, it is funny that people point the finger at all of these businesses that they are accusing of being run on greed -- but they still cling to those businesses' goods and services.

BTW, I get irked when I hear protesters complaining that the wealthy have so much and they have "so little." Some of them claim that they "live in poverty" while others are successful, so they want what the successful people have earned to be "spread" to them.

I have known poverty -- but not the phony claims of it that some people at these protests are claiming (while carrying an iPhone or iPad no less and sipping a cup of Starbucks).

I spent the greater part of my childhood performing back-breaking migrant farm labor. Our large family (I had nine siblings) lived in a one bedroom travel trailer as we woke up before dawn and worked fruits and vegetables. We didn't even have a working shower, so we showered behind some blankets on a clothesline using a water hose.

All of the money that we earned went to the FAMILY (and our goals of buying land and building a house). Every once in a while, my dad would let us keep a few dollars to buy personal hygiene products...including shampoo. Yes, store-bought shampoo was a luxury for us.

My parents didn't complain about successful Americans. No, to him, we were living the American Dream! With some hard work and effort, his children had the OPPORTUNITY to succeed in this country.

My dad and mom never had the opportunity to attend Junior High School (let alone high school or college). They can't speak English. Yet they wanted it for all of their children to go to college. They provided an example of individuals who knew that anything is possible in this country if you work hard for it.

After years of migrant work, we had enough money to purchase some land in Texas. A few years later, we completed the first house on that land. It was a shack that we built with our own hands -- but we loved our home.

My dad demanded success in school, so he made sure that we always made good grades. It wasn't a question of whether or not we would pass. The question was whether we would make the Honor Roll or Principal's List. We did this without parents who spoke English, without a computer in the house, and with no encyclopedias.

A few years after that, my oldest brother went to college to study Architecture. He designed a home for the family and we started working on it ourselves. We spread the concrete, put up the bricks and nailed the sheet-rock. My husband (when we dated in college) used to say that he had never worked as hard as he did when he visited my family -- because Dad put him to work too. For our parents' birthday, we simply gave them some money that we earned to buy material for the house.

My dad did everything in terms of plumbing and electrical work that the state didn't require a license for. We saved up to pay contractors and inspectors to do the rest. Eventually, we moved into our 5BR, 3 bath two story brick home.

My dad never owed a dime for the land or the house or any car. He doesn't even have a bank account. He paid everything with cash and a handshake. When he wasn't working on the house, he worked at Walmart with a smile mopping up aisles. He made sure that all of his children went to college, and all graduated with at least a Bachelor's degree (with the exception of the youngest who is a student here at Stanford).

So, when I hear people complain about being "poor" and demand that the "wealth" of others be passed down to them -- it irks me. There is something wrong in a nation where the work ethic is so low that people feel entitled to things that they did not work for...just because others have it. My husband and I are certainly not rich. We are just starting out in life and currently live paycheck to paycheck. There is no money in our house for an iPhone -- let alone an iPad.

So, when I see someone who has a roof over his head, carrying an iPhone and wearing designer clothes complain about being "in poverty" and then demand that others give him things that he didn't work for -- then I have to roll my eyes.

In my view, that is a real display of "greed."

So, why don't I protest myself?

I would protest if I saw the need. Sure, there are greedy people in this world. So what? Sure, there are people who make more money than they know what to do with. So what? And, sure, there are plenty of production jobs overseas. So what? That doesn't mean that people can't succeed...or that those who are successful should be forced to give the bulk of what they worked hard for to people wearing designer clothes.

It just means that the American Dream has been replaced by the inebriated vision that hard working individuals in business are "evil" and that less-enthusiastic people should take things that they didn't don't work for.

That is not a noble cause.

Bless you,Nayeli.

Nayeli: I wasn't talking about you supporting OWS, obviously you don't lean that way. I was talking about how you offer all sorts of advice about what to protest about and where to protest. And yet apparently you don't actually protest yourself. the recommendation is to get out and actually protest vs sitting around and telling others what they should protest.

Popularity of OWS vs tea party:

"Q. From what you know about these demonstrations against Wall Street, would you say you completely agree with the goals of the protestors, mostly agree, mostly DISagree, or completely disagree with their goals? Web Link

Completely agree: 12
Mostly agree: 47
Mostly disagree: 18
Completely disagree: 13
Don't Know/Refused: 10"

Another reuters poll: Web Link

"Favorable: 38
Unfavorable: 24
Undecided: 35"

Lean conservative Time magazine: Web Link Tea party is not supported, OWS is supported by Americans:

" Q8: Is your opinion of the tea party movement very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don't you know enough about the tea party to have an opinion?

Very favorable: 8%
Somewhat favorable: 19%
Somewhat unfavorable: 9%
Very unfavorable: 24%
Don't know enough: 39%
No answer: 1%

Q: In the past few days, a group of protesters has been gathering on Wall Street in New York City and some other cities to protest policies which favor the rich, the government's bank bailout, and the influence of money in our political system. Is your opinion of these protests very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don't you know enough about the protests to have an opinion?

Very favorable: 25%
Somewhat favorable: 29%
Somewhat unfavorable: 10%
Very unfavorable: 13%
Don't know enough: 23%
No answer: 1%

Overall, the tea party comes in with a net favorable rating of negative 6 percent, versus a net positive rating of 31 percent for Occupy Wall Street."

NBC poll: Web Link

" Q: From what you know about these protests do you tend to support or tend to oppose these protests, or do you not have an opinion either way?

Tend to support: 37
Tend to oppose: 18
Have no opinion: 25
Haven't heard: 20

The tea party, by contrast, has a net favorable rating of negative 13 percent in the poll."

@ Here comes:

You said that I don't protest. This is incorrect. A person can "protest" something without physically setting up a tent on a street corner, chaining themselves to a tree or sitting in a building and refusing to leave.

As for the Tea Party: Who cares? I didn't bring up the Tea Party...and I don't lose sleep over them either.

I don't think that there is a competition between the Tea Party people and these "occupy" protesters either. So, why are you exerting an effort to compare the two groups?

As for approval: I already showed you a poll where only 20% approve of this movement.

Web Link

Like I said, it could be due to the fact that few Americans (and, apparently, occupy protesters) know what it is that they are specifically calling for.

And, like I said, this group seems to be targeting the wrong people. Wealthy people aren't policy makers. They don't create trade, taxation or regulation policies. They simply find a way to succeed in spite of it.

It is the elected politicians who set the rules. If this group wants to accomplish something, then they should set their sights on politicians in Washington D.C.

Thank you, Walter.

Nayeli: Your own poll shows that those that follow the protests closely support the protesters 52% to 29%.

The four polls also listed above show similar or stronger results.

Nayeli: "Yeah, this group is meandering into obscurity."

I'm afraid not. Even you won't let them fade - you've been offering them advice for days on this thread and other thread. And if NYPD keeps acting militant instead of letting weather drive them away in due time, they'll just get stronger.

The tea party is fading into obscurity faster(shown by polling,) propped up only by uber lobbyist Dick Armey's "Freedomworks" with Koch brothers money.

@ Here comes:

The Gallup poll that I cited shows that ~20% support the "occupy" protesters' "goals." The other 80% either do not support them...or don't know what the group really wants.

As for the "Tea Party:" Again, I don't even know why you bring it up. I am not in the Tea Party. I have never attended a Tea Party rally. And, I don't know anyone in the Tea Party.

I will say this though: The Tea Party people seem to know how to present their causes more clearly and, perhaps, with a better degree of civility. Moreover, they strongly influenced the last election less than a year ago (when their favorite Republicans took over the House of Representatives).

Of course, I really don't care about the Koch Brothers or Dick Armey or any liberal or conservative lobbyist. This is a free country (still) -- even if grown men are standing on street corners demanding things that they did not work for.

nayeli "Again, I don't even know why you bring it up. I am not in the Tea Party. I have never attended a Tea Party rally. And, I don't know anyone in the Tea Party. "

Didn't say you did. But doth seem to protest too much. Quite sensitive.

Was brought up by several posters (perspective, etc...) above.

It's a natural comparison, that's why it's polled.

Yes, the tea baggers NOW have a clear message - the original grassroots element has sold out to freedomworks, run by corporate lobbyist Dick Armey and funded by the Koch brothers. So freedomworks controls the message. No more signs saying "get your government hands off my Medicare" and all the original tea bagger racist signs: Web Link

Before then? Hardly clear. The biggest noise they were making was just that - noise. Demanding birth certificates, etc..

And protesting against Wall Street, just like OWS.

Funny that.

@Nayeli
In my opinion, you are the most intelligent and compelling contributor at paloaltoonline.
Would like to join Walter and say... Bless you, Nayeli.

HCTH, I don't think it's helpful to label that movement "tea baggers." I also don't think it's helpful to suggest that group is motivatted by racism at all. I know some people in that group and I consider myself as being knowledgeable of such things. I don't think that it helps your argument to belittle another group while trying to advance your own. You don't have to agree with their ideas, but it is another matter to try and demonize them.

Maybe this would be a good time to set the record straight and explain the motives of OWS and what it is that they are specifically trying to accomplish.

I remember the old days when college students were marching and protesting the war in Vietnam. I think that a couple of things killed the movement. It lacked a real mission. Yes, we were tired of that war, but we should have said why instead of just repeating some talking points about making love and not war. The movement lost influence because there eas no intelligent responses to questions about what we were doing, why we were doing it and what we wanted done. And, we also allowed leaders to emerge to speak for us who politicized the movement. We were non-establishment at first. We were marching against Johnson in 1968 but we were engrafted as Democrats just a couple of years later.

This movement reminds me of that era, but it is even more disorganized and President Obama and other establishment Democrats are trying to own it and influence it for their own good. That will kill anything meaningful that could ever occur from ever coming to pass.

I have grown a little wiser in my old age and, surpisingly more conservative. I am still ready to change the world. However, I am weary of knocking down walls that could fall on me or unleash the beast on the other side.

This would be a good opportunity for you to state the movements exact frustrations and state how to effectively change things in this country for the better.

In addition, I would like to echo what others are saying about Nayeli. I find her story fascinating and very inspirational. It gives me hope for the future of Palo Alto and this country. I don't know what your educational and vocational background is, but I would encourage you to become active in local government. Your attitude and perspective is refreshing.

Good night!

Nayeli: your guy Schoen totally misrepresented his OWN poll!

" Q: What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP
4% Radical redistribution of wealth
5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax
7% Direct Democracy
9% Engage & mobilize Progressives
9% Promote a national conversation
11% Break the two-party duopoly
4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system
4% Single payer health care
4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately
8% Not sure"

@ Here comes:

First of all, I think that you confused the poll that I cited with someone else's.

I don't know who "Schoen" is and the poll that I cited was a scientifically conducted poll from Gallup commissioned by USA Today. And, by the way, it is not "my" poll (as you said previously). It is a Gallup poll.

Web Link

The poll clearly states that, in terms of total pool of participants:
- 22% approve of the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement
- 15% disapprove of the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement
- 63% don't know enough to say about the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement

Regarding the manner by which the protests are conducted:
- 25% approve of the conduct of the Occupy Wall Street protests
- 20% disapprove of the conduct of the Occupy Wall Street protests
- 55% don't know enough about the conduct of the Occupy Wall Street protests

Furthermore, out of those who were polled and stated that they follow these protests very or somewhat closely, 35% approve of the goals of the OWS movement, 22% disapprove, and 44% said that they don't know enough about any of their goals.

Everyone can rally behind and support ambiguous rhetoric. After all, everyone hates "greed" -- and who doesn't perpetually want "hope" and "change?"

However, it is when a group clearly spells out their views that they begin to fracture public support. It seems that this group is based upon an accusation that wealthy and hardworking Americans who obtained success are somehow "greedy" and that the only "goal" of this group seems to be the sentiment by some protesters to demand what the wealthy have worked for.

If this is incorrect, then you can try and enlighten me. However, the perception of the group is ambiguous at best. I watch the news on several channels, read several newspapers and read various magazines and websites. After all of that, I can't find a very clear mission for this protest group.

In fact, I find just the opposite. I find people who are just disgruntled or dissatisfied with their own current state of life and decide to point the finger at the wealthy because they don't have what the wealthy have earned.

Like I said, I roll my eyes when I see kids walking around in Nikes, Abercrombie shirts and carrying iPhones and complaining that the wealthy should give them more even though they don't work for it.

@ Terry & Kyle:

Thank you for the encouragement. Sometimes, I feel that I just don't "fit in" here because of the level of criticism and ire that I seem to receive. It is nice to know that I am not alone.

It doesn't matter that many, many thousands of people around the world are participating in Occupy. Nayeli doesn't get it, so she wants to complain, whine and criticize. Perhaps she's worried that her dad's job at Walmart is on the line or something.

I love it when she wrote "what the wealthy have earned." Yeah, earned. Many of them don't "earn" their wealth. They steal it, inherit it, marry for it. Many of them don't actually work for it.

So Nayeli's a non-wealthy person who sticks up for the wealthy.

Nayeli: You say over and over and over and over about OWS: "the perception of the group is ambiguous at best. ... After all of that, I can't find a very clear mission for this protest group. "

And then you falsely assign this as their clear message, when it isn't (as you first admitted over and over): "complaining that the wealthy should give them more even though they don't work for it."

That's dis-ambiguous at best, a fabrication on your part.

But keep rolling your eyes. For something that you insist will fade into obscurity, you are doing your best to keep discussion of OWS in the forefront.

Thanks.

@ Wonderfulworld:

Nonsense.

So what if some of the wealthy inherit their wealth from their parents? When did it become evil to leave an inheritance for your children?

And why should the wealthy leave YOU their wealth instead?

It is simply ironic that this group seems to be complaining about "greed" and then demanding that others give them something that they have not worked for.

And, by the way, I am not "sticking up for the wealthy." I am simply sticking up for the American Dream. ANYONE can be successful in this nation -- including a group of protesters who think that they have it "bad" and aren't motivated to do the hard work that it takes to be successful.

@ Here comes:

I have asked you over and over again to clearly spell out what it is that the protesters are complaining about...and what solutions they have for a remedy.

You prefer to ignore this...which gives credibility to the findings of the Gallup poll that found only 22% of Americans agreeing with the protesters' "goals."

So, if you want, enlighten us with you specific reasons that you protest and what you want to happen.

And, of course, complaining that people are "greedy" is not specific enough -- especially since many in the group seem to be even greedier by demanding that the wealthy give them more of what they have legally earned (or, like you insist, inherited).

Well said Nayeli..I often wonder why it is "greedy" to try to keep what you risked and worked for..and NOT "greedy" to try to take what you DIDN'T risk and work for!

Basically. ..."Thou shall not steal" is not something well understood by redistributionists.

A poll discussed in the WSJ previously posted:

" Q: What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP

4% Radical redistribution of wealth

5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax

7% Direct Democracy

9% Engage & mobilize Progressives

9% Promote a national conversation

11% Break the two-party duopoly

4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system

4% Single payer health care

4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately

8% Not sure"

Where is the greed you CONSTANTLY refer to?

Your Gallup poll at 22% is an outlier as already shown: (links are above - you ignored them before)

""Q. From what you know about these demonstrations against Wall Street, would you say you completely agree with the goals of the protestors, mostly agree, mostly DISagree, or completely disagree with their goals? Web Link

Completely agree: 12

Mostly agree: 47

Mostly disagree: 18

Completely disagree: 13

Don't Know/Refused: 10"

Another reuters poll: Web Link

"Favorable: 38

Unfavorable: 24

Undecided: 35"

Lean conservative Time magazine: Tea party is not supported, OWS is supported by Americans:

" Q8: Is your opinion of the tea party movement very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don't you know enough about the tea party to have an opinion?

Very favorable: 8%

Somewhat favorable: 19%

Somewhat unfavorable: 9%

Very unfavorable: 24%

Don't know enough: 39%

No answer: 1%

Q: In the past few days, a group of protesters has been gathering on Wall Street in New York City and some other cities to protest policies which favor the rich, the government's bank bailout, and the influence of money in our political system. Is your opinion of these protests very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don't you know enough about the protests to have an opinion?

Very favorable: 25%

Somewhat favorable: 29%

Somewhat unfavorable: 10%

Very unfavorable: 13%

Don't know enough: 23%

No answer: 1%

Overall, the tea party comes in with a net favorable rating of negative 6 percent, versus a net positive rating of 31 percent for Occupy Wall Street."

NBC poll: Web Link"

What, Nayeli, who I think is a Stanford grad, isn't capable of doing her own research to find out what the various messages are from the Occupiers?

It baffles me why she would stick up for the greedy elite. There is a huge variety in demographic amongst the protesters - some of them are well off, many are not. But all of them feel that many are getting away with something despicable.

@ Here come:

An open-ended poll is not a scientifically conducted one. It isn't indicative of the OWS protesters' views and specific goals. It is just a list of opinions as to where people would like to see this group set as its goals. It actually gives credence to the polls that show few understand WHY they are protesting and WHAT they are trying to accomplish.

The fact that you seem to be ignoring is that people aren't sure what this group is doing and what they are trying to accomplish.

Again: Would you like to tell me EXACTLY why people are protesting...and what they want to ultimately accomplish?

This way we can determine whether or not we agree with any of it...and whether or not the protesters are setting up tents at the wrong location (Wall Street instead of Washington).

Nayeli: We get it. You DON'T agree with it. You DON'T understand it. You want a single unified message. On that, you have been quite clear.

You stick with one poll that supports your view, while ignoring or belittling 5 other polls posted for you to consider.

No worries. Don't worry your little head over it. OWS will likely NEVER have a clear enough message for you. Your posts make that clear.

At least half of your posts have you expressing that you prefer these protesters (that you don't agree with and profess to not understand) should be, in your view, elsewhere.

I'm afraid they didn't hear you. But I'm sure they REALLY appreciate your kind advice!

So.... why don't YOU go to Washington as you have suggested numerous times, and protest your clear, concise message?

Since you posted that they should be in DC a half dozen times, it must be quite important for YOU. So go, girl, start your movement if it is that important for you, as defined by your posts! Perspective and a couple others will be right behind you!

@ Wonderfulworld:

No, I wasn't privileged to attend Stanford (and I didn't even think to apply at the time). The universities that I attended were all public state schools. I had to work my way through school too. Most of the time, I worked two part-time jobs and attended school full time.

You wrote: >>>> "It baffles me why she would stick up for the greedy elite." <<<<

And, again, I take offense to two things:

First, I am not "sticking up" for anyone. I just don't see the point of individuals -- who are carrying iPhones, iPads and sipping Starbucks -- whining that they don't have what more successful people have. I have seen the interviews where these people complain that they are "poor." They obviously have lost the definition of the word "poor" -- and are defining it in contrast to the level of success of a small group of others that they define as "1%."

If you want to see REAL poor people, I can take you to some places that will change your understanding of the word "poverty." Ironically, most of us in migrant farming camps didn't even know that we were "poor" at the time. We had a home (a trailer), food to eat, water to drink, and a wonderful family. We were getting paid to work too. We simply thought that people living in drought stricken Africa or back in Mexico were the REAL "poor."

Secondly, it is incorrect to stereotype successful individuals as being "greedy." Some wealthy Americans are also the biggest "givers" in this world. Bill and Melinda Gates have donated BILLIONS of their income away.

Moreover, the wealthiest Americans pay the most in income taxes. Whereas 47% of the country have ZERO federal withholding tax liability and contribute ZERO to the social welfare system, the top 1% flip the bill for 37% of the tax revenue in this nation. That is roughly equivalent to the percentage of tax dollars going to social welfare services. So, in essence, the wealthy 1% are paying for ALL of the social welfare services in this nation!

Still, the most disturbing thing to me is that you are somehow trying to demonize people for their success in work or the fact that they received an inheritance from their parents (or want to leave an inheritance to their children).

When did it become wrong to work hard to be successful or decide to leave your children the fruit of your labor? What is so "despicable" about that?

@ Here come:

No, I think that it is you who don't understand what people are saying. We aren't saying that you don't have a right to be angry or protest. I am just pointing out that a majority of Americans don't know WHY this group is protesting (other than accusations about greed) or WHAT it is that they want to accomplish.

You have ignored every request to enlighten us about this specifically. I am beginning to suspect that you don't know either.

The majority of Americans don't know why ?

They don't know because the Media has been bought by the Republicans. Why do you have FOX News ?

Our Media, Our Government have been bought by the 1% Elite. Get the message out.

When the 99% get the messages, their blood would boil and every street in this country will be OCCUPIED.

GET THE MESSAGE OUT.

From reading your long message, it seems to me that you may not get the complete picture.

What do you know about the bailout of 2008 ? Have you read the "The Shock Doctrine" ?

@ majority of Americans:

So, since you believe a conspiracy is amiss regarding the news media, then go ahead and enlighten us with your specific "message" from this protest...and what specific solutions "message" that the group hopes for a remedy.

Thanks,
-Nayeli

Again with the "other than accusations about greed"

What accusations of greed? Sure, like many Americans, we hate having our political sytems bought, but how is that greed?

From the poll referenced in the WSJ, please tell me where the listing for greed is:

" Q: What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP

4% Radical redistribution of wealth

5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax

7% Direct Democracy

9% Engage & mobilize Progressives

9% Promote a national conversation

11% Break the two-party duopoly

4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system

4% Single payer health care

4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately

8% Not sure"

Where is the greed you CONSTANTLY refer to?

The message is very clear.

This country is broken.

Oh, right, Nayeli, since they may have electronics and drink coffee, that means that they aren't allowed to protest?

Admit it - you always stick up for the Republicans and rich.

Your focus on shallow minutiae is your excuse for seeing the demographics of the protesters and what their various messages are.

Maybe you should do some homework before you keep asking people to spoon feed you answers.

@ Here come:

Wow -- so, from what you are telling me that the people who responded to the WSJ open ended poll have NO IDEA what about any specific goals are from the protesters...and only offer suggestions about what their goals could be?

You still haven't described to me EXACTLY what the problem is...or what a solution would be. You keep quoting a mere open-ended poll of SUGGESTIONS.

BTW, the "greed" that I constantly refer to is the "greed" that others have mentioned in this comments section and what I hear in interviews from the protesters and read in their signs.

=======

@ majority:

You say the message is "clear" and then only say "the country is broken." That is like someone arguing that the "specific" problem with the Oakland A's is that "they are a broken team" and offering no specific reasons why or anecdote to verify my claim...let alone a solution to fix them.

Please, enlighten us with EXACTLY what you think is wrong...and how it can be fixed.

=======

@ Wonderfulworld:

I didn't say that these people don't have a right to protest. I simply pointed to the irony that people drinking Starbucks, carrying an iPad, iPhone and wearing name brand clothes are complaining about being so "poor" and pointing the finger at the wealthy because they have more.

And, of course, it is ludicrous to claim that I "always stick up for the Republicans and rich." That statement is untrue and just...ridiculous. I am just having a difficult time understanding the rationale of trying to paint wealthy people as "evil" just because they either worked hard to earn their wealth or inherited it.

How does that make people "bad?" It makes no sense whatsoever.

By the way, I don't get "spoon fed" by Republicans, Democrats or protesters who seem to be whining that some people have things that they don't.

I tremble for my country when I think that there are such GREEDY people who want more of what others have...and think that this is "good."

"BTW, the "greed" that I constantly refer to is the "greed" that others have mentioned in this comments section and what I hear in interviews from the protesters and read in their signs."

Good defense. Refer to anecdotes and posters here and apply it to a whole movement. As opposed to any real evidence. Like a poll.

Golly, that's fair. Open ended poll? BAD!!! Quote posters above and refer to vague interviews you claim to have heard? GOOD!! Yup, you are most fair!!

Nayeli claims to have seen **so many photos** of their signs about GREED (!), but apparently none about voting issues, corporate personhood, wealth inequity, education fairness, Citizens United, or any of the other issues represented in signs that so many others have seen.

First you want them to march on the White House for your unknown reasons; now you seem so upset because some posters here can't give you a written-in-stone tablets example of all their issues.

Odd how that works. Perhaps a certain someone is viewing the news with blinders on?

Golly, that's fair. Can't answer Nayeli's exact question? BAD!!! But go march on the White House for Nayali's unspecified reasons? GOOD!! Yup, you are most fair!!

Nayali: "It will take a change of specific policies in Washington. So, I would urge the protesters to move their protests to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and just up the road to Capitol Hill. "

and

"And, of course, I think that Washington politicians are a much better target"

and

"then they should set their sights on politicians in Washington D.C. "

and

"or not the protesters are setting up tents at the wrong location (Wall Street instead of Washington). "

First, it's: they aren't specific enough for Nayeli!! but that doesn't stop her from saying they're specific enough for her to suggest Washington!!

Pretty soon, easy enough to predict, Nayeli will through up her hands in exasperation, claim she's tried so hard to understand and claim she's done with this thread. Then she'll post a couple more times, get rebuffed by others with facts, then claim she's done again. Then say she was dragged in a for a couple final posts, get rebuffed again with evidence and then disappear.

@ Here come:

There is nothing unfair about asking for specific motivation behind this protests and being puzzled by you constantly posting an open-ended poll about where some people -- including many who aren't associated with this group -- want their direction to go. If anything, it is proof that the group doesn't have an identity yet -- except to complain that some people are rich in this country.

Why are you moaning about those you accuse to be "greedy?" You are incorrectly connecting the dots between "wealth" and "greed." Just because someone is wealthy...worked hard for success...or inherited money...well, it doesn't mean that they are "greedy." There is no logic to it, yet we hear many of these protesters say this daily.

There are plenty of greedy people living in inner cities as well. They break into homes and steal...steal bicycles from Stanford students...and grab purses from elderly women. Where are the protests about THEIR greed?

The reason that I suggested that they take their concerns to Washington is because the current target of their ire -- individuals who work to make businesses successful or people who work on Wall Street -- are only following the rules set by POLITICIANS. The politicians have the power to change the rules...and are accountable to people.

As you have proven, you can't explain the motivation behind why this protest even exists. You have cited a poll as to where they can go, but (by the number of different ideas listed) even that is still unclear.

Greed is bad. However, wealth -- in an of itself -- is not bad IF it is gained legally and is gained through hard work, effort, ingenuity or the love of parents who cared enough to leave it to their children.

I believe that a truly "greedy" person is someone who wants something that someone else has that they aren't willing to work hard for themselves. I think that a greedy person is also someone who complains that they are "poor" because they compare themselves with others or complains because they don't have as much as others.

Just because they have electronics and drink designer coffee and wear name brand clothes doesn't make them rich. In fact, those are the hallmarks of the middle class, the ones who are also suffering - it's not like the 99% are the poor, thankfully.

Sad how Nayeli is so focused on these minor details that she can't see the forest for those mesmerizing trees.

Just because people work hard for something doesn't make them good. There are plenty of corrupt, greedy, hardworking rich - our country is full of them. Start w/Trump and go from there.

Again, you're too focused on minutiae and view these issues from a simplistic, childish view.

A lot of the rich are so because of a combination of hard work, good luck, corruption, greed and turning a blind eye to injustice. The difference between you and them, in this case, is that they're not childish in their views - they're cynical and shrewd.

"Why are you moaning about those you accuse to be "greedy?""

I'm not, and haven't.

You are the one who brought up greed over and over again. From YOU: "BTW, the "greed" that I constantly refer to is the "greed" that others have mentioned in this comments section and what I hear in interviews from the protesters and read in their signs."

Lousy misdirection.

But nice 300+ word rant on greed, though.

Before this globlization of the trades, the domestic greed only were limited in how they treated our domestic goods' prices and labor conditons,but after that, the greed were expanded to limit our jobs, that is the destruction of our foundation of this once flourish society.

@Nayeli

For starters, Constitution Amendment to ban Corporate Personhood.
Campaign Finance Reform.

Web Link

I don't have a problem when a person works hard and makes money. Just don't do it by bending the rules and have taxpayers finance your casino and endless wars for profit.

And don't hide your corruption by manipulating the media.

I guess that I have shared my views on this matter and attempted to decipher any clarity of rationale and goals regarding those who support the protesters, so there is no point in trying to debate any further.

I respect the rights of anyone to protest when they perceive an injustice or something that they disagree with. However, I think that the assumption here is that corporations -- and those who work to make such businesses successful -- are operating entirely out of "greed."

Moreover, it seems that some are angry that some people have earned or inherited wealth without sharing it further than the average 37% federal income tax rate that they pay and the private donations that they make. This is an assumption that I feel is based on a notion that is based upon a shadow of spin and not truth.

I fear that some in this movement literally are embracing a class-warfare mentality where they want the wealth of the rich to be "spread" to them even more than it already is. This idea of "collectivism" is a sharp contrast to the ingenuity and invention that comes from the free market that rewards success.

So, I suppose that I will just step out of the conversation. I wish everyone the best success through a strong work ethic and commendable, courageous effort. However, I also leave you with one last question (that we all heard in high school):

Who is John Galt?

@ Here come:

Oh, and btw, I first mentioned "greed" because I have heard it in nearly every news interview and report on the OWS protests, read it on many of the signs of the protesters...and also saw it twice in this comments section before I mentioned it.

It wasn't all about you and your posts. It was about the movement that seems to focus on accusations of greed. Of course, you never felt the need to even define what the protesters are standing for...so you are right that you never mentioned it (directly).

Good luck!

Again with the greed, again without evidence. Anecdotes don't count - show your links.

And your comment is a rather silly comment: "I think that the assumption here is that corporations ... are operating entirely out of "greed." "

Of course they are, otherwise they have a different name.

They're called "non-profits."

The first purpose of a corporation is shareholder return, at least since the 1800's.

I'll let others debate you on how corps go over the line, buying politicians, changing, bending and breaking the rules.

@ Here come:

I am going to step out of the conversation, because I think that it has run its course.

However, as for the question about accusations of "greed," I simply invite you to search for "Occupy Wall Street greed" via Google or Bing. Google pulled up over 38 Million results and nearly 11 Million images. The interviews, images and demands are quite telling.

Good luck, and I seriously only wish you (and our nation) the best.

As predicted, running when pressed to provide supporting evidence.

"Pretty soon, easy enough to predict, Nayeli will through up her hands in exasperation, claim she's tried so hard to understand and claim she's done with this thread. Then she'll post a couple more times, get rebuffed by others with facts, then claim she's done again. Then say she was dragged in a for a couple final posts, get rebuffed again with evidence and then disappear."

Google search results at Nayelis request:

"Occupy Wall Street greed" - About 38,200,000 results

"Occupy Wall Street jobs" - About 781,000,000 results

Nayeli: If you really don't understand OWS, then you either watch news with a filter in place, or you watch news that filters.

32 million vs 781 million.

"The interviews, images and demands are quite telling."

Wow.

@ Here comes:

Nonsense. I am not "running" from anything or anyone. I am just exasperated by continuing to discuss this when you either ignore (or cannot understand) the question that I asked several times.

As for "evidence:" I also told you that you can easily search online (via Google or Bing) the words "Occupy Wall Street" and "greed." There are more than 38 Million results with Google.

Web Link

Besides, I asked you a long time ago about SPECIFIC rationale behind this protest group, and you never responded except with an open-ended poll about the direction that different people want the group to go.

For someone whose screen name complains about "haters," you seem to be filled with quite a bit of animosity toward those who you simply disagree with.

Oddly, you claim that you don't imply that this is about "greed" but then argue that businesses are motivated by it. You need to realize that there is a difference between "profit" and "greed." A business that sells something at a fair price is not motivated by "greed." They are motivated by profit.

"GREED" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves."

"PROFIT" is defined as "the return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met."

If I compare the investments from ingenuity, hard work and effort in the business world in a free market economy with demands from protesters who the wealth of others to be spread to them -- then it seems that the latter fit that definition much more than the former.

It is not helpful when someone stereotypes the entire free market economy as being motivated by greed (even if YOU aren't using this particular word). It is no wonder that the International Socialist Organization is participating in and helping to organize many of these protests.

Still, I think that this conversation has run its course. We obviously disagree on the motives of this group and the accusations -- and even many of the directions by which some have suggested the movement should go.

@ Here come:

And what creates or hinders jobs in this country?

Wall Street? Or the politicians in Washington who direct regulation, taxation and trade?

Apple manufactures its products in China. Why?

According to his biography, Steve Jobs told Obama at this year's closed-door meeting that “regulations and unnecessary costs” put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with China, where companies can build factories more cheaply.

In addition, Jobs complained to Obama about "union work rules" that were crippling industry and the educational system of this country. He went on to say that trade policies with China, created during the Clinton Administration, had given China the ability to surpass the United States as the most powerful manufacturing nation.

Web Link

If this is truly about jobs as your last post suggested -- then why aren't the protesters marching in Washington D.C. where the politicians create the rules that the business world must follow? And why are the protesters complaining about corporate greed as they demand that their wealth be spread to them?

Another 350 word bloviation on greed, with Nayali's sole evidence:

"the words "Occupy Wall Street" and "greed." There are more than 38 Million results with Google." Big whoop. You can probably get 30 million hits with "ANY FOUR WORDS"!!!

Again, this time with feeling, maestro....

Google search results at Nayelis request:

"Occupy Wall Street greed" - About 38,200,000 results

"Occupy Wall Street jobs" - About 781,000,000 results

"any four words" - About 210,000,000 results

What a fallacious argument - google search hits?!? Google the words "any four words" and you get 6 times as many results!!

Search OWS and the word JOBS and you get about TWENTY times as many results. Under Nayeli's argument - case closed - JOBS wins!!

again: it's Nayali's filter with which she watches news, or the filter applied by the news she watches. She wants it to be greed, so her filter only sees greed.

Possibly though, giving her the benefit of a doubt, maybe only her media outlets filter for her - Fox, Rush, lgf, freeperville and redstate say greed, so Nayali only hears greed. Not much of a benefit though, because that implies a certain "you know what".

;-)

Now it's time for Nayali to act offended, with a couple posts before she rushes off.

Greed.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Now she's back to wanting the protesters back in DC, what's that? The 6th or 7th time you've hit that one?

"If this is truly about jobs as your last post suggested -- then why aren't the protesters marching in Washington D.C."

I didn't suggest it was all about JOBS, I merely used that example to crush your GREED argument.

Nayali, don't let them bother you. You have held your own intelligently and with grace. Some people just like to argue and spend their lives blaming others for their own inabilities or lack of legitimate cause for grief. I appreciate your life story and the perspective that it brings. Palo Alto used to have many people similarly motivated residents who practiced good citizenship. Now it seems like many just want the city or state to give them more or cater to their own needs. I hope that a few obstinate posters don't prevent you from commenting in the future. I enjoy your comments and they remind me about what once made Palo Alto so great. I don't know your vocation or educational background, but you should consider getting involved in local government. We could use your prudent mind and thoughts.

I think that I am going to excuse myself from this debate.

"Here comes" obviously cannot answer the questions that I posed earlier or deal with the fact that anyone disagrees with him or the rants by many of these protesters.

He also insinuates the pathetic claims that I am gullible enough to be influenced by media sources or Rush Limbaugh (a man that I strongly dislike).

There is no reason to carry on a "conversation" where one party only hears (or tolerates) what he wants to hear.

@ Kyle:

Thanks...again.

I sometimes question whether or not to post because it seems like a few loud people seem to control the discussions and then I feel like I am swarmed by them sometimes. It is nice to know that someone actually likes my comments.

BTW, I don't think that politics is something that I would be interested in. As much as I am concerned for my country, I feel a stronger "calling" to my family right now.

"There is no reason to carry on a "conversation" where one party only hears (or tolerates) what he wants to hear. "

Nice reversal of the comment on your filters.

Have you Googled "any four words" yet? ;-)

"that I am gullible enough to be influenced by media sources" Then please provide evidence of WHICH MEDIA sources claim it's all about GREED.

It isn't, and both you and I know that the word "greed" was just the talking point de jour for certain outlets.

If you think I'm wrong - PROVE IT by giving evidence. Link to the reports about GREED.

Not a couple signs or a Google hits result.

A pathetic hits result, at that. (32 million vs 781 million)

No problem, Nayali. I mean it.

Here come the haters, you may want to stop now. You are making yourself and your movement look bad. I know that my esteem for the protesters has been diminished somewhat by your posts and the attitude.

Kyle's correct. Run Nayali run!

Or run away.

I believe that the "G" word should join the "N" word. The average NFL player earns 5 million bucks a year. Is that greedy excess? I guess it is if you are the peanut butcher in the stands. But how many players would go all out for peanut butcher wages?
The "G" word adds nothing to any discussion.

What would Jesus do?

Throw the money changers out of the temple!

The Left is doing the correct thing on this one, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Hee hee hee...Our country, the formerly great land of opportunity, doesn't even make the top 10 list of countries to start a business in..

Web Link

We are behind even RWANDA for ease in starting a business.

Keep killing the geese that lay the golden eggs, WSO/Democrats/Communist Party USA/Fascist Party/leftists.

Nayeli: Good try, but you are assuming a certain ability to think when you try to educate the leftists. You can't teach or fix stupid, you can only defeat it.

Vote smart Nov 2012. Vote Constitutional Conservative

What kind of patriot giggles at America's misfortune????

"Hee hee hee...Our country, the formerly great land of opportunity, doesn't even make the top 10 list of countries to start a business in.."

The US was 13th in that one category.

Rather an odd thing to gloat in, Perspective.

Also an odd point to focus on in an oddball survey, while ignoring the obvious takeaway: "The United States ranks fourth in the over-all ease of doing business in 2011..."

4th out of 190. You can stop laughing and giggling like a little schoolgirl at your perception of America's misfortune, Perspective.

4th out of 190. "You can't teach or fix stupid, you can only defeat it."

With facts.

Unless, in fact you are a giggling little schoolgirl, in which case - no offense.

Giggle?

Why does perspective hate America so much?

Sung:

Perspective can't help it, he has such a large pair of....

...partisan blinders on, he can only see failure. And loves to insult what he perceives as his "enemy", otherwise known as Americans.

During a week that we participated in finishing off Qaddafy, that we announced a REAL Mission Accomplished, only a couple months after getting bin Ladin, the fringe righties still think it's their sole purpose to whine and insult: "You can't teach or fix stupid..."

I don't think Perspective really hates America, at least that she hates America too much, not as much as he seems to hate many Americans.


But I thought perspective wasn't a giggling little schoolgirl, either.

"Hee hee hee...Our country, the formerly great land..."

May God bless America.

Nope, don't hate America...love her dearly.

Laughing because the leftists got what they wanted..and destroyed us. They go down with the rest of us, which is the only good news in all this. They shot the boat full of holes and now we all drown. It is not a laugh of happiness, but a laugh at stupidity. A laugh of "told you so". A laugh of " at least you suffer with the rest of us". A laugh because the left has destroyed itself, at least for the short-term since Americans truly have short-term memories. ( Give us 10 years of a roaring economy, and Americans will hear the drumbeat of leftists again)

Can't wait, truly, to bring us back to our former land of opportunity.

I hope it isn't too late to change back.

Dear Here Comes: So, when we caught Saddam Hussein and handed him over to the legal govt of Iraq, who tried him and executed him according to their laws, THAT was NOT a "mission accomplished", nor is it a "mission accomplished" when a country establishes itself as a constitutional democracy..That is not a triumph of the human spirit toward democracy.

BUT a mob dragging someone, live, through the streets prior to killing him IS a triumph? No government in place. Lawless. Ripe to turn into another Iran?

Killing an American citizen without due process of trial is a triumph?

Killing Bin Laden, yay!!! did the right thing!! After sleeping on it for 16 hours, at least he did the right thing!! I am supposed to jump up and down because we did the right thing? Nope, he turned it into a "where is Bin Ladin" show because..where is the footage? Where are the photos? Creating another conspiracy theory and chaos, as usual. Oh, that is right, we are supposed to believe ( and I do) that Bin Ladin is dead because a few Congressfolks saw pictures. Cool. But how many in the Middle East believe it? This guy can muddle up anything.


I truly, truly can't wait until Nov 2012.

Sorry guys, I was responding to the posts above, and forgot the thread intent is OWS.

I will join Nayeli and stop.

"Laughing because the leftists got what they wanted..and destroyed us" Just like Nayali, another fact-less post with lots of hyperbole. She ran away, as predicted, you'll post a couple more flamethrower fact-less posts and do the same.

Your hatred and partisan blinders won't allow you to see facts. This is the Bush Great Recession.

Republicans had the House until 2006, the Senate from 2002 to 2006, and Bush from 2001 to Jan 2009.

In 2000, Clinton left us an annual budget SURPLUS of over $100 billion, while creating 22 million jobs in his 8 years.

Bush took that SURPLUS and gave us our first trillion dollar DEFICITS, and when he left office, we were losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 per month.

While I'm personally pretty ticked off at Dems (and Clinton) also, this is mostly a Republican mess.

To blame it on "leftists" is a joke. But it's a joke you and other haters can't even see, can you?

So sad.

"It takes a walloping amount of willful cluelessness to look at a mass of people holding up signs and claim that they have no message."

It is there,you just pretend not seeing it.

To those "furious with Bush" and the RINOs, HELLO!!!!!! Knock yourselves on the heads a bit and realize we conservatives WERE furious about the big govt Repubs joining the majority Democrat party in both houses n continuing affirmative action home loans, more spending on Medicare, bailouts and vote buying.

Think a tiny little bit, now..ok?

We were all furious with the deficit, some were furious with the war in Iraq as "illegal", and we were all furious with the attempted "vote buying" of both parties.

So, here come full and total Democrat control led by Obama. The last tiny little veto pen went away.

Who tripled the deficit spending, and has gone FAR FAR over on the other side of spending, bailouts, illegal wars and anti-State legislation. Not to mention huge cronyism "loans" and bailouts to Democrat buddies ( Solyndra, anyone?), Fast and Furious gun running, and completely unconsititutional takeovers of businesses like banks, oil, and autos.

If you see with any integrity what the Democrat Party led by Obama has become, you see much, much, much worse than anything the RINOs did..not to mention I should bring you up to the modern era and remind you that Dems led by Obama had full and total control from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011...and did nothing but throw gas on the economic fire.

Try to connect a few dots..you ( and we) were mad at bigger govt control and bailouts, you voted in tripling down on stupid, and now you are still "blaming Bush" for the results of the next election? Do you blame the old coach when the new coach creates an even worse team that the old coach was fired for?

OWS is correct to be angry at our economics now..just completely and utterly wrong about the "fix"..they want more gas on the fire.

Vote conservative next time. No more Democrats, no more RINOS.

Bring us back our individual freedom to practice economic "survival of the fittest", where when one wins, many win.

First - Perspective laughs at America: ""Hee hee hee...Our country, the formerly great land of opportunity..."

Now he rewrites history: Bush and "Repubs joining the majority Democrat party in both houses"

Bush had the House from 2000 to Jan 2007, was given a SURPLUS from Clinton and immediately started running deficits leading to America's first trillion dollar deficit. Bush also had the Senate until Jan 2007.

Bush had BOTH houses for the Majority of his two terms.

Quit lying by trying to rewrite history, Perspective. "Repubs joining the majority Democrat party in both houses"

The rest of your rant is also filled with fringe opinion, unsubstantiated claims, etc..

I'm at a loss as to why would anyone listen to someone who laughs at America when we're going through tough times (started by Bush's deficit spending and massive job losses,) and lies about historical fact.

We agree on one area: I too, also hope the GOP runs your vision of a "true" conservative.

Romney? Woo-Hoo! conservative? Hah.

Cain? Add a 9% to CA's 8% sales tax? Raise NH's sales tax from zero to 9%? Will he ever come off book tour to go to Iowa?

Perry? Going to quit debateing because he's too dumb to nail his talking points against Romney.

Bachman?

Gingrich? Which wives will vote for him? The ones he spent money on at Tiffany's?

Santorum? Google.

Huntsman?

Roemer? At least he's a conservative.

Johnson?

Paul?

Who passes your purity test out of THAT crowd of goofs?

Excuse me for yawning, Hater, but did you note that I was supposing we AGREED on the excess spending by RINOs and Dems, which went from 170 billion deficit before the Dems took over both houses to 500 billion when they took over and had only one Presidential Veto pen to hold them back..to 1.7 trillion ( yes, over 3x as much) when that Presidential Veto pen turned into a Teleprompter?

We agreed that bailouts were bad with the Dems Congress and Repub President...and even worse when they were extended to Unions in Auto Companies and State Unions across the nation in the form of a "stimulus".

We agree it was horrid to bail out Banks also..

The OWS folks think it was the "banks fault"..and perhaps you agree. I disagree. The banks didn't make the rules that they had to play by, but we DO agree that they could have at least TRIED to push back a bit and let us know what was going to happen if they were continually pushed to give bad loans to please Mama Fannie and Daddy Mac.

The rest of your rant is vaguely disturbing, as if you haven't quite caught on that time is marching onward..yes...there were screw ups before Jan 2007, even more up to Jan 2009, and a quadrupling down on stupid since then...and it is time for all of us to say "enough..stop throwing gas on the fire!"

But, I suspect you will always "believe" it was the evil bankers, that it is somehow "wrong" for some folks to be extremely rich, and that government in DC is benign and helpful, therefore the more of it the better.

Fine, I will take my cue from Nayeli and the wise one who advised her to leave..I am out of here.

Nayeli: Somehow I missed your story...wow.

I hope you thank your parents for yourself and for the rest of us who appreciate real Americans like your parents and you who "get it".

Have you ever considered writing your life story? I will never forget someone I knew..I went into her home, where she and husband had lived for 40 years in Mountain View. A 3 bedroom/1bath home. Raised 12 kids there. No English from the parents. Farm worker dad, mom had kids and raised them and cared for the house. I saw a photo of her, her husband and her kids, and she proudly told me in her language that "this one is a police officer, that one a principal, that one.."etc. Every single one had gone to at least 2 years of college, every single one independent.

When I asked her where everyone slept, she pointed to the living room floor and bedrooms. When I asked her the secret to raising 12 successful kids, she told me she got them up every morning and made them go to school, no excuses, no whining..even if they claimed to be sick they had to go to school and only come home if the nurse called to say they had to come home.

Wow.

Now that, and your story, are what makes America great.