if you can't prove in a court of law that the people elected to represent us are being bribed up the wahzoo, why should we beleive yous simply because yous say it's true?

And if you CAN prove that the people elected to represent you are being bribed up.... then aren't you barking at the wrong tree? Why don't you occupy the White house or the Capitol instead?

Choices choices... To can or not to can...

not bribed you miss understand, all our congress members are expected to spend x-amount of time fundraising. The folks running for office have to spend tons of $$$ advertising ...most of it coming from corporations. I'd like to see people run for office without corporate backing AND I'd like to see our law makers work at dealing with my concerns rather than fundraising and addressing the concerns of those that pay for their campaigns. Unfortunately, the concerns of the majority come in second to the concerns of the few with the dollars.

adam carolla acurately identifies the "occupy" syndrome
google him, and enjoy

somewhat of an accurate rant, though don't know if it accurately reflects what has become so FU and corrupt with Wallstreeet though it might reflect half those protesting.

If anyone don't think their is something wrong with the Street I would think they must be a broker or ignorant of what has become of the system.

Lets face it a common share holder is the supposed owner of the company but the system of ownership is so controlled by the street itself that the common shareholder is nothing more then a gambling fool as most shares are held in grouped retirement funds/401k's/Ira's so that the street is in control of voting those shares, where a few executives in those companies and Board members are the only ones realizing the profits.

As an example Look at Nabors Ind. in the news this week CEO getting 100M salary and 100M as an exit from CEO though he is still chairmen, and while he did turn the company around in the mid 90's if you had the stock as a stock holder (you know fictional OWNER) for the past 10 years you didn't make a penny!
yet he is getting @ 25% of the whole company profit this year alone.
This isn't any different then a few years back when the fool (O'Neal) who ran Merrill Lynch into the ground by pushing them to go heavier investing in the mortgage market. Gets fired for his screw-up and handed almost 1/4 BILLION dollar good bye package for collapsing and destroying the company.
The system is fixed to where the insiders are rewarded no matter what while the Common share holder either gets little of rewards or gets busted.

you want govt control
i do not
i wish freedom, and the rewards or repercusions that go with it

i've known since elementary school that the stock market is a gambling game....so i keep my money out of it
but you want me <the tax payer> to save the dumbasses who decided to gamble anyway?
fluff that
they were stupid to have invested money they couldn't afford to loose in a gamble....no different than going to vegas

Lack of Gov't controll didn't work very well either. Look at the economies of the late 1800s early 1900. Instead of recessions every 7-10 years there were mass depressions instead.

thought i covered that part already:

you want govt control
i do not
i wish freedom, and the rewards or repercusions that go with it



the only thing govt has ever run effectively was the military, and even that has been going by the wayside lately(due to political interference, imho)

are they done yet?
are they done yet?

i think OWS is pointless in most aspects. notice how most people don't even have the same things in mind when they protest. the only reason i say in most aspects is because this country needs a good protest every once in a while

To your point Oceana, That's more a product of the lack of a singular monetary policy than it is of government control. The US solved the problem by creating the Federal Reserve, which I'm fine with. This is precisely the problem the EU confronts since they don't tie fiscal to monetary policy because they have no shared monetary policy.

Coming back around to more government or less government, the broader argument of the thread. I would quote David Brooks' column in yesterday's NYT:
"According to a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past 30 years, inequality in Sweden, Germany, Israel, Finland and New Zealand has grown as fast or faster than inequality in the United States, even though these countries have very different welfare systems."

More government does not mean less inequality. In fact, it oftens lead to greater inequality because the government is a less efficient means of filtering out the best solution to most problems. People worried about the redistribution of wealth vastly misunderstand how you sustain a rising tide that can lift all boats--it doesn't come from the wealthy, but it doesn't come from punishing investment either. It comes from creating a system by which innovation, creation and production are encouraged.

i almost accidently saw a squad of Occupiers today. thank god for noisy people.