Anonymous to Occupy Wall Street and Create Megathread

[Allrule]

A sad reality.

Why Americans let lobbyists buy their government for so many years I will never know.

No idea.

You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.

2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars

In other words, about 39 million dollars in the UK 2010 compared to 5.3 billion for 2008 US.

[Keronians]

A sad reality.

Why Americans let lobbyists buy their government for so many years I will never know.

No idea.

You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.

2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars

Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.

[F1-Insanity]

Rep. Debra Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairman was interviewed on the subject of this Occupy Wall Street thingy. She tried to work it into line with "what we [DNC] have done" and just stumbled along empty handed. And you could tell that she knew it. Everybody expects Occupy Wall Street to favor the Dems. Yet it could not be more clear that the Dems have nothing in reality in common with the protests. After all, they voted even more FOR all these bailouts than the republicans did, and banker/insurer/mortgage giant campaign contributions to Democrats and the DNC are also very telling... plus the fact that Obama is effectively the Goldman Sachs candidate. His list of economic advisers and cabinet members reads like a who's who of the '1%'. They should be scared. Very scared. But to coopt they will try.

[F1-Insanity]

No idea.

You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.

2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars

Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.

Hey, it was a good investment for many.... back the winner and get free taxpayers money aka bailouts/TARP etc...

[New England and The Maritimes]

Rep. Debra Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairman was interviewed on the subject of this Occupy Wall Street thingy. She tried to work it into line with "what we [DNC] have done" and just stumbled along empty handed. And you could tell that she knew it. Everybody expects Occupy Wall Street to favor the Dems. Yet it could not be more clear that the Dems have nothing in reality in common with the protests. After all, they voted even more FOR all these bailouts than the republicans did, and banker/insurer/mortgage giant campaign contributions to Democrats and the DNC are also very telling... plus the fact that Obama is effectively the Goldman Sachs candidate. His list of economic advisers and cabinet members reads like a who's who of the '1%'. They should be scared. Very scared. But to coopt they will try.

The people have no choice but to support the Democrats. They're the only big tent party left and they're the only one with the organization and funding to take on the Republicans(whom nobody with a brain wants in office,) successfully. Ideally, the Progressive movement is going to take over the DNC from within and people will be a lot more enthusiastic in their support.

[F1-Insanity]

Rep. Debra Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chairman was interviewed on the subject of this Occupy Wall Street thingy. She tried to work it into line with "what we [DNC] have done" and just stumbled along empty handed. And you could tell that she knew it. Everybody expects Occupy Wall Street to favor the Dems. Yet it could not be more clear that the Dems have nothing in reality in common with the protests. After all, they voted even more FOR all these bailouts than the republicans did, and banker/insurer/mortgage giant campaign contributions to Democrats and the DNC are also very telling... plus the fact that Obama is effectively the Goldman Sachs candidate. His list of economic advisers and cabinet members reads like a who's who of the '1%'. They should be scared. Very scared. But to coopt they will try.

The people have no choice but to support the Democrats. They're the only big tent party left and they're the only one with the organization and funding to take on the Republicans(whom nobody with a brain wants in office,) successfully. Ideally, the Progressive movement is going to take over the DNC from within and people will be a lot more enthusiastic in their support.

There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).

[New England and The Maritimes]

The people have no choice but to support the Democrats. They're the only big tent party left and they're the only one with the organization and funding to take on the Republicans(whom nobody with a brain wants in office,) successfully. Ideally, the Progressive movement is going to take over the DNC from within and people will be a lot more enthusiastic in their support.

There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).

Not really. Obama genuinely believed the things he said in 2008. What's happened is he has taken a back seat to his cabinet in stead of taking strong action. It's my belief he was simply not ready to become the President when he did. Ideally, he's going to realize he needs to take charge after his re-election.

There are literally no realistic candidates in the field that I would prefer to Obama. None whatsoever. I will, however, support Clinton in 2016 if no major progressives take the field by then.

[Augustus Este]

There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).

Not really. Obama genuinely believed the things he said in 2008. What's happened is he has taken a back seat to his cabinet in stead of taking strong action. It's my belief he was simply not ready to become the President when he did. Ideally, he's going to realize he needs to take charge after his re-election.

There are literally no realistic candidates in the field that I would prefer to Obama. None whatsoever. I will, however, support Clinton in 2016 if no major progressives take the field by then.

I thought Clinton said she'd retire from politics after 2012?

[Drachmar]

There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).

The only reason Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 4 times more in campaign contributions in 2008 is because they identified that he was going to beat McCain in the general election; they correctly predicted the outcome. Had the institution believed the McCain/Palin ticket would win, they would have bought them off instead.

Otherwise, why give to both candidates? They're only buying regulatory policy that favors them.

[F1-Insanity]

There is always a choice... no matter how unlikely. Sticking with the Goldman Sachs candidate ain't gonna change anything. And yes, some of the current Republican candidates are complete morons (Bachmann) or paid for banker stooges (stop pretending mr Perry). Obammy will just continue taking cues from Goldman Sachs (like W before him).

The only reason Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 4 times more in campaign contributions in 2008 is because they identified that he was going to beat McCain in the general election; they correctly predicted the outcome. Had the institution believed the McCain/Palin ticket would win, they would have bought them off instead.

Otherwise, why give to both candidates? They're only buying regulatory policy that favors them.

Check the correlation between 'Obama economic advisers' and 'Goldman Sachs' or one of the other major investment/thieving banks... as Yoda would say 'correlation is strong with this one'...

[Euronion]

Anyone who studied the issue, and was honest, was able to predict it.

. . . before the crisis he was just a regular economics professor consistently prophesying doom and consistently being wrong about it, until now) and a few other financial experts and traders who actually prophesised the crisis . . .

like the old saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day", though I do do disagree, my Uncle predicted the financial crisis and he was a financial officer for Toyota, I remember him telling me about it, he would tell me stuff like "I'm telling you, these great economic times are going to come to an end soon, what goes up must come down,"

[Hydesland]

Check the correlation between 'Obama economic advisers' and 'Goldman Sachs' or one of the other major investment/thieving banks... as Yoda would say 'correlation is strong with this one'...

Who in particular are you thinking of? I mean the names I can think off of the top of my head that would have any actual influence (Romer, Summers, Krueger, Goolsbee etc...) have all been academics, not bankers.

[Drachmar]

The only reason Goldman Sachs gave Obama over 4 times more in campaign contributions in 2008 is because they identified that he was going to beat McCain in the general election; they correctly predicted the outcome. Had the institution believed the McCain/Palin ticket would win, they would have bought them off instead.

Otherwise, why give to both candidates? They're only buying regulatory policy that favors them.

Check the correlation between 'Obama economic advisers' and 'Goldman Sachs' or one of the other major investment/thieving banks... as Yoda would say 'correlation is strong with this one'...

Proof that campaign contributions from powerful special interests buys influence in gov't.

Otherwise, why contribute to both parties? These groups influence elections through campaign financing, then expect favors in return. Had Sachs believed McCain/Palin would take the White House, they would have contributed more to their campaign.

[Hydesland]

Has anyone noticed that people can't make up their mind on whether Obama's advisor team is full of academics with no real world experience or revolving door financiers from wall street? People need to pick a cliché talking point and stick to it.

[Drachmar]

Has anyone noticed that people can't make up their mind on whether Obama's advisor team is full of academics with no real world experience or revolving door financiers from wall street? People need to pick a cliché talking point and stick to it.

Conspiracy theory of the week, the new gameshow...

Only on FOX!

[New England and The Maritimes]

Has anyone noticed that people can't make up their mind on whether Obama's advisor team is full of academics with no real world experience or revolving door financiers from wall street? People need to pick a cliché talking point and stick to it.

His cabinet is made up of academics with some experience in administration. He seems to be picking people with good backgrounds in their relative fields and overall brilliant men, and then, in stead of using them as tools to aid his policy direction, following their orders and letting them tell him what he can and can't do.

[Tubbsalot]

His cabinet is made up of academics with some experience in administration. He seems to be picking people with good backgrounds in their relative fields and overall brilliant men, and then, in stead of using them as tools to aid his policy direction, following their orders and letting them tell him what he can and can't do.

Well, yeah. The President is a figurehead. You don't interfere in things you don't understand - you leave it to the experts. Seems reasonable to me.

[Andaluciae]

No idea.

You can see it when you compare the funding of the recent elections.

2010 UK Election - 25 million pounds
2008 US Presidential Election - 5.3 billion dollars

Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.

I'd add, though, that American campaigns have evolved into, essentially, two-year long affairs.

[Greed and Death]

Yeah, you'd expect something like $200 million or so (given America's larger geographical size, and population), but over $5 billion is simply ridiculous.

I'd add, though, that American campaigns have evolved into, essentially, two-year long affairs.

The benefits of snap elections.

[Andaluciae]

Breaking news: Technocratic bureaucrats still doing more than the "occupiers."

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... al_economy

[Andaluciae]

I'd add, though, that American campaigns have evolved into, essentially, two-year long affairs.

The benefits of snap elections.

I can't believe we have to put up with these bombastic pricks for over a year of more campaign...

[Greed and Death]

The benefits of snap elections.

I can't believe we have to put up with these bombastic pricks for over a year of more campaign...

There are Reasons I do not have TV.

[Ridicularia]

Breaking news: Technocratic bureaucrats still doing more than the "occupiers."

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... al_economy

Oh, the irony.

[New England and The Maritimes]

His cabinet is made up of academics with some experience in administration. He seems to be picking people with good backgrounds in their relative fields and overall brilliant men, and then, in stead of using them as tools to aid his policy direction, following their orders and letting them tell him what he can and can't do.

Well, yeah. The President is a figurehead. You don't interfere in things you don't understand - you leave it to the experts. Seems reasonable to me.

Wrong. You set policy based on your positions, using experts as guides to reasonable application. What Obama has done is left policy entirely to his cabinet after being told what he "can't" do.

[Romatticus]

Sooo.... Was this supposed to happen 2 days ago?
Anon fail