Today they say they want to camp out in Iowa and disrupt the Iowa Caucus(s) .
News from The Associated Press

But why would they want to camp out in the cold of Iowa when there is a nice warm place with blue skys and clear ocean water to occupy ?

I make the case that if they want to be heard ;they should do a Cindy Sheehad and camp out by the President's vacation abode . The President's vacation is going to be a $4million check that the US taxpayers are going to foot. Yesterday he set the record for the most rounds of golf by a sitting President

Quote:

---

With this one, Obama reaches a new milestone, having gone golfing 90 times in less than three years as president. That's about three months of golf, given that the excursions generally take about five hours – much of the useful portion of the day.

---

Obama Golfs for the 90th Time as President | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

... this at the same time he did an under the radar request for an additional $1.2 trillion raise in the debt ceiling .

Yes that would be an interesting contrast... the President in a $3500/night rental representing the 1% elites and the occupiers in LLBean tents .


Had the occupiers used the Hawaii option ,they could've gotten a twofer . 1 %er Minority leader Madame Mimi Pelosi checked in to the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai on the big Island that costs $10,000 /night for Christmas weekend . The locals shelled out $34,000 for the added security surrounding her visit .
At least she paid for the room herself ;thanks to a very good year investing on insider information .

The wealth gap between congress and their constituents keeps widening, and at least the "1 percent" they targeted actually create jobs so of course they've been protesting the wrong people all along. And still most of the wealthiest in Congress are Democrats, who stay in those $10,000 a night hotels and park their yachts in other states to avoid paying taxes. But yet the occupiers plan on disrupting the Iowa caucus instead of the president's golf game.

That wouldn't be the same yacht owner who invested
$200,000 in ResMed, a
healthcare company ,that had it's value increase by over 70% during the Obamacare debates... while he was a prominent member of the Senate Finance Committee's Health Subcommittee ?

I think it probably would be the very same yacht owner, senator and former presidential candidate.

Sounds like a whole lot of gripe, you create a system where joe ordinary can't get elected for lack of funds then lament that the rich get elected. Where I come from the rich are making too much money to bother thus we pay our politicians more than yours just to attact anyone of note

The oWs have finally learned that politicians are the target, so a little cold should dampen their ardour after all they probably don't have the price of a ticket to Hawaii. You couldn't be taken seriously occupying Hawaii

Nor will they be taken seriously in Iowa .
Breitbart.tv Peaceful: Occupy Protester Rushes Stage During Newt Speech

Quote:

---

You just saw one tenth of one percent, all voice no thought

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

sounds like a whole lot of gripe, you create a system where joe ordinary can't get elected for lack of funds then lament that the rich get elected.

---

Exactly. Sums up the whole thing nicely.

Tut

And how many of the non-political class gets elected as backbencher MPs ?
The problem here is not that avg people can't get elected... it's just that they so often get seduced by what is called "Inside the Beltway " culture. (the Beltway is the hiighway system circling Washington DC)

Hello tom:

You forgot to complain about Michelle Obama taking her own 757 costing the taxpayers zillions... That's a current right wing email..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and how many of the non-political class gets elected as backbencher MPs ?

---

What is the non political class? If you are going to get elected you are political, anyone who is not interested in politics need not apply. We have had some very interesting exceptions to the "you need money" rule but you couldn't say any of them were non political.

I think it is interesting that BO has proven to be a grifter just like all the rest. In it for what he can get out of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and how many of the non-political class gets elected as backbencher MPs ?
The problem here is not that avg people can't get elected ...it's just that they so often get seduced by what is called "Inside the Beltway " culture. (the Beltway is the hiighway system circling Washington DC)

---

Hi Tom,

I thought that to be a Republican president you have to be a millionaire Texas rancher. To be a Democrat president don't you still need to be a millionaire, but a millionaire of the people?

All our backbenchers are political, but very few are millionaires.

Depends what you mean by average. As in average millionaire?

Tut

Then you need to check your perceptions at the door. Although many of our Senators and Members of the House have spent their lives in elected public service there are also many that have come from a variety of professions .

Page 2-4 has a breakdown in their occupations .
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/166794.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then you need to check your perceptions at the door. Although many of our Senators and Members of the House have spent their lives in elected public service there are also many that have come from a variety of professions .

page 2-4 has a breakdown in their occupations .
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/166794.pdf

---

Yes, but my question was who has the money required to be elected to the highest office in the land? In our system we don't get to say who is the Prime Minister. The party decides.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Yes, but my question was who has the money required to be elected to the highest office in the land? In our system we don't get to say who is the Prime Minister. The party decides.

Tut

---

Now Tut you shouldn't mislead the poor boy, their party decides who is the leader, so does ours. We know in advance who the leader will be just as they do, then the electorate decides if that person and the policies are acceptable. Difference is, our way of impeaching the leader is somewhat more sudden death, lose the confidence of the party and you are out even if you are the PM

There is truth to what Clete says. Obama sealed the deal when the Kennedy clan put their "weight" behind him. He certainly wasn't wealthy even though his ghost written autobiography did decent sales.

What you need to question is... why do so many of them leave office wealthy ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is truth to what Clete says. Obama sealed the deal when the Kennedy clan put their "weight" behind him. He certainly wasn't wealthy even though his ghost written autobiography did decent sales.

What you need to question is ...why do so many of them leave office wealthy ?

---

Hi Tom,

Good point

Tut

I reckon we can start by watching where these guys end up upon leaving office.

25 members of Congress with lowest net worth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I reckon we can start by watching where these guys end up upon leaving office.

25 members of Congress with lowest net worth

---

Interesting articles did you observe that some are on both the richest and the poorest list so what about the hundreds of other members of the Senate and Representatives, do they keep their affairs hidden?

Michelle Bachmann was being heckled by the Occupy the frozen tundra of Iowa yesterday .

Here is her comment :

"You may have seen all over Des Moines the Barack Obama re-election advance team is already out there in the various parking lots of all of the campaigns,"

She's right .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

"You may have seen all over Des Moines the Barack Obama re-election advance team is already out there in the various parking lots of all of the campaigns,"

She's right .

---

Hello again, tom:

Those bastards..

excon

Nah... not b@stards... fools .

Hello again, tom:

What's foolish to me is ignoring the elephant in the room. I was just reading Mark Steyn . He's one of the voices of the rightwing. He represents you well, and he's as WRONG as you get...

Oh, he's right about us being broke, but he, like ALL of you, refuses to grasp that there's OTHER expenditures that the country should give up along WITH entitlement reform...

But, he's stuck on getting rid of entitlements, and NOTHING else.. To me, that's ideological and NOT economic. Therefore, that conversation will go NOWHERE.

Indeed, that is very possibly WHAT the Republicans WANT. In my view, they'd rather see the economy CRASH further so they can blame Obama.

Yeah, they're the real bastards, and OWS knows it. Go OWS!

excon

I'm in favor of whole depts being eliminated.. So it is not true that the only focus is on entitlements. I've also stated here that the defense budget is too big... that any dept that big is bound to have a bloated budget that could easily and painlessly be trimmed .

However ;you know ,or should know that it is the unfunded obligations that will break the country . Already the entitlement obligations represent 40% of the budget and the demographics guarantee that each year a higher percentage will be spent servicing the obligation.

When Social Security and Medicare are taken together, the total unfunded liability is
$43 trillion, or about $379,475 per household.In the next
5 years, that total will grow to $57 trillion, or $500,414 per household.
All your other spending concerns are a pittance in comparison. It is unsustainable even if the government budget was cut to the bone and operated in perpetual austerity .

Reforms that have been outlined by people like Paul Ryan and before him GW Bush were designed to save these programs... not destroy them.

As for the rest. The President can go into the election cycle and claim he inheritted a bad economy... inheritted it from his 1st 3 years. He took a bad situation and made it worse with reckless spending of borrowed money and fake printed currency. It is he alone ,with a hat tip from the Pelosi Reid led Congress that decided to focus on turning health care into Obamacare instead of focusing on fixing the economy. It was them who threw away our money by the billions in worthless green ventures run by their corporate cronies. It was he who has thrown road blocks in the way of proven job creating initiatives because ;as Stein mentioned ,they didn't conform with theirs and the Sierra Clubs vision of utopia .

I'll say it again . The fact that the OWS people marched past George Soros apartment on their way to the Koch Bros home in Manhattan proves they are an instrument of the Obots. The fact that only a handful of people stood vigil at the gates of the Obama vacation rental... mostly to protest GITMO proves to me that they are insincere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

mostly to protest GITMO proves to me that they are insincere.

---

Hello again, tom:

You don't need a lot of convincin... I, on the other hand, am willing to give them a chance to mature.

But, they've already changed the conversation. Before OWS, income disparity wasn't an issue. Now it is. It'll get better too. Just you watch.

excon

Funny you should say that ex. At the elite Ivy League university Columbia where it costs something like $60,000 a year to attend, students can now take a course in OWS.

You can't make this stuff up.

Hello again, Steve:

It's not surprising that you'd object to what an "elite" school would teach.. You guys aren't really in to education. To ME, it sounds like a course that an institution of higher learning SHOULD be offering. It's called “Occupy the Field: Global Finance, Inequality, Social Movement.”

By the way, I note that the writer in your link KNOWS that OWS is all about "anti-capitalist protests", even though you guys keep complaining that you can't figure them out..

By the way, I'm a capitalist - a staunch one. Do you think I would protest what I, myself, AM?? Really?? That would be like me marching FOR the drug war.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Ex, I don't care if the school is "elite" or not, most have the same liberal/progressive agenda so it matters not. However, if you can't see the irony in teaching a class on OWS - a group protesting the rich - at a preppy Ivy League school that charges you $60,000 a year, you're beyond help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

if you can't see the irony in teaching a class on OWS - a group protesting the rich - at a preppy Ivy League school that charges you $60,000 a year, you're beyond help.

---

Hello again, Steve:

I see no irony, because there IS none. You, again, misunderstand what OWS is about.. We're not protesting the RICH. We're protesting the POLICIES that allowed the rich to get even RICHER than they ever have been AT the expense of the middle class.

The super rich are only SUPER rich because of POLICY - not because they got smarter than all the other rich people who came before them.. But, the rich started to become SUPER rich in the 1970's, when POLICY began to favor them.

It's THOSE policies that are at the ROOT CAUSE of our nations problems... OWS knows it. I know it. I don't know WHY you don't.

excon

Doesn't surprise me about Columbia U . That's one of the schools Obama attended .

According to the US Treasury, America ended the year, with debt at an all time record $15,222,940,045,451.09. That's $15trillion+.

US debt to GDP is now officially over 100%... 100.3% . We are now officially a debtor nation .
During the 8 year GW Bush term the national debt rose an unreasonable $3.8 trillion. Obama managed to add $5.5 trillion in 3 years .Now there's a record he can be proud of .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

According to the US Treasury, America ended the year, with debt at an all time record $15,222,940,045,451.09. That's $15trillion+.

---

Hello tom:

Spending bills originate in the Republican controlled house... If the HOUSE doesn't approve it, it doesn't get spent.

excon

Gee, I was saying that when the Dems controlled the House under Bush and Obama, when the national debt increased by $5.2 TRILLION.

Hello again, righty's:

The debt isn't important now, anyway... It's JOBS, and you wingers are doing your best to cut JOBS. The deficit can be reduced WHEN we're growing again.

So, you guys are doing the exact WRONG thing... Who's surprised?

excon

If only there was a shovel ready job for the government to approve... something like... oh let's say... a pipeline to transport oil from Canada to American refineries . OR... oh let's say... 200,000 jobs in Ohio alone in the Utica shale fields .

I hope the President makes this campaign about jobs. He's tilting at windmills when there are real jobs awaiting the stroke of his pen.

Quote:

---

Hello tom:

Spending bills originate in the Republican controlled house... If the HOUSE doesn't approve it, it doesn't get spent.

---

Quote:

---

Gee, I was saying that when the Dems controlled the House under Bush and Obama, when the national debt increased by $5.2 TRILLION.

---

Correct on both counts. Republicans since 2010 have passed budgets that have been stalled in the Democrat controlled Senate . We have lived with continuing resolutions since then that do nothing to reduce spending .More than once I've been willing to call the Dem bluff and let the gvt. Shut down.

Before that ;where most of this round of spending was legislated ;it was a collaboration of the Pelosi /Reid Congress and the willing pen of the President.

I did not give President Bush a pass on spending before then because his veto pen for the most part was an under used instrument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I hope the President makes this campaign about jobs. He's tilting at windmills when there are real jobs awaiting the stroke of his pen.

---

Hello again, tom:

There ARE, and I hope he does...

By the way, the pipeline you're talking about won't feed OUR refineries... OUR refineries are operating at FULL capacity. The oil flowing through THAT pipeline will go to China. It won't add a drop to our supply.. It won't lower the cost of oil. It'll add about 6,000 TEMPORARY jobs.

But, I agree with you... There are jobs awaiting the stroke of Obama's pen. The bill that'll create 'em, though, has to make its way through a House that is DETERMINED NOT to let Obama have a victory... So, that ain't going to happen.

I don't know WHY putting Americans to work is a VICTORY you're denying to Obama, but the electorate is figuring it out... In fact, you HATE Obama SOOOO much, that you're willing to cede the future of the GREEN energy industry to China... I don't know what you have against this country.

excon

Quote:

---

There are jobs awaiting the stroke of Obama's pen. The bill that'll create 'em, though, has to make its way through a House that is DETERMINED NOT to let Obama have a victory...

---

That must be hidden in the fine print of his legislative agenda . This week White House spokesman Josh Earnest said extending the payroll tax break through next year is "the last must-do item of business on the president's congressional agenda."
Really ? Leaves him plenty of tee time between his campaign stops .
Why he would concentrate his only legislative agenda of the year on a "tax break", that raids Social Security is beyond me. Maybe for a change of pace he could prod the Senate into passing the budget sitting on Reid's desk ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That must be hidden in the fine print of his legislative agenda .

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. It's NOT hidden from Mike Huckabee.

“One of the reasons that I was so frustrated and decided not to get in the race was because it appears to me, and it still does to a large degree, that many of the Republicans are more interested in just defeating Barack Obama than they are in rebuilding America."

excon

Spoken from the guy who sabotaged the 2008 primaries. You would think that would be reason to get into the race since in his mind it would distinguish him from the other candidates.

The Huckster found his niche on FOX... playing base guitar while pretending to be an expert.

That is nice spin but here is his unstated reason for not getting in:
"One of the reasons that I decided not to get in the race was because I am a has-been and don't want to give up my lucrative $$$$$ gig".

Quote:

---

By the way, the pipeline you're talking about won't feed OUR refineries... OUR refineries are operating at FULL capacity. The oil flowing through THAT pipeline will go to China. It won't add a drop to our supply.. It won't lower the cost of oil.

---

When completed, the pipeline system is expected to have capacity to transport up to 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, or about 6 percent of our total oil consumption per day in the U.S. Combine this with our existing 7.5 million barrels of domestic petroleum production, this would total over 44 percent of our total domestic consumption per day.
Source from a pipeline critic :
Robert L. Cavnar: Keystone XL Pipeline Extension Not the Real Issue

Crucial line in op-ed:
In my view, I would rather import a million more barrels of oil a day from Canada, who is friendly, rather than from the Middle East, who is not. That's the choice. The only choice.

But if we don't build the pipeline then I agree with you... the Canadians will build a pipeline to Vancouver and sell it to the Chinese.
Obama has screwed them over long enough .