Back when I started really paying attention to politics, I saw candidates take substantial amounts of their own money and pour it into their campaigns.  When I would discuss this with friends, I would say the only reason they would do this is because they knew they would get a return on their investment.  And that return must be pretty substantial because they need to get elected if they ever expect their investment to pay off.

Almost 100% of the time the response I would get would be something like, "No.  The pay politicians get can't possibly make up for the millions some of these people are putting in."

"But there are 'perks' and that's where they really make their money" I would say.

"If they did that, then it would be illegal and they could lose their job or get thrown in jail."

"But they make the laws.  They have enormous power.  And they control the government."

I really can't recall a single time when anyone would reach that point where they saw my position as even a possibility.  It was just unfathomable our trusted elected officials would ever take advantage of their position.  But if they did, we had the media hound dogs keeping them in check. 

My eyes were opened about 35 years ago.  A friend of mine was talking when he ran for Chicago alderman and lost by three votes.  He said that was the best thing that could have happened to him, "because I would be in jail by now."  He went on to explain that what he had learned from that time on, by staying politically connected (he was friends with many Chicago powerhouse politicians), was that there was so much money flashed in the face of politicians it would have been impossible for him to resist.  The reason he would be thrown in jail and the rest of the politicians aren't is that he isn't a lawyer.  "As a lawyer, I could have taken bribes and called it a legal consultation fee.  I would report it and pay taxes."  I wasn't naive, and I knew my friend didn't bull->-bleeped-<-.  But it was then I knew at least one way politicians were able to commit a crime and walk away scot-free.

As this article points out, politics is now one of those professions where you will walk away much richer than what you walked in with.  Yet I can't remember a time in my life when I haven't heard family, friends, the media, whatever, talk about how important it is to keep money out of politics.  Look where we are now.

Politicians used to pass laws protecting the citizens.  Then they took the bribes and started rescinding those laws which opened the floodgates of greed.  The OWS protesters are our soldiers, fighting on the front lines against the armed militia of the rich, paid for through our tax dollars.  We should be screaming through the rooftops.  Yet there is an apathy, a disbelief, a head-in-the-sand attitude that is so prevalent it makes me wonder if the average citizen wants to hand their freedom to anyone willing to take it.

We talk about the US as the Land Of The Free.  And freedom is always in jeopardy of being lost if you don't protect it and fight those who want to take it away.  Our military is fighting the villains overseas.  Our government is focusing on the wrong villain 

>> COULTER:  -- taking over. Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good.  And despite the Neil Young song -- <<

Coulter is an extremist.  Even as a fiscal conservative, I can't stand her.  She makes Rush look centrist.

I just saw a piece on 60 Minutes about the growing number of homeless kids in America today, "The Hard Times Generation".  One statistic said that number is nearing 25%, more than any time since the Great Depression.  60 Minutes did an earlier piece on homeless kids that is on YouTube now.  The second piece should appear there later.



Then Julie sends me this article about Ronald S. Lauder, heir to the Estée Lauder fortune.  It's hard to read the article after seeing the two pieces by 60 Minutes.  When will these uber-wealthy have enough money?  At what point will they see that all the influence they have used to muscle legislation favoring their growing wealth is hurting today's kids?  When will their piece of the pie be big enough to satisfy them?

And what will it take for the general public to realize it's time to make some dramatic changes in the people we elect to govern this country and act in the interest of all the citizens, and not just the chosen?

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 27, 2011, 08:37:06 PM
I just saw a piece on 60 Minutes about the growing number of homeless kids in America today, "The Hard Times Generation".  One statistic said that number is nearing 25%, more than any time since the Great Depression.

Currently, the highest level of unemployment is for people under 25 yr old, with college degrees. Coincidentally, I posted two articles on homeless trans kids today.

Z

Well as soon as israel attacks Iran the american economy will pick back up hiring many youth / draft and those who won't fight will be put in internment camps run by FEMA.. The super rich kids will still get their college deferments though because they can afford the loans or cost at any price..

yea sick huh.. seems kinda obvious though.. and we the people think we have any ability to make changes by voting for either democrats or republicans.. Just like the egyptians think they will get who they want in todays vote yes right hah.. 

Israel PM 'wants to strike Iran'
(UKPA) – Nov 2, 2011 
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his cabinet to authorise a military strike against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme - a discussion that comes as Israel successfully tests a missile believed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran, an official said.

It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was sabre-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran.

Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counter-strike and the risk of regional mayhem.

The developments unfolded as the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to focus on the Iranian programme at a meeting later this month. The West wants to set a deadline for Iran to start co-operating with an agency probe of suspicions that Tehran is secretly experimenting with components of a weapons programme.

Israeli leaders have said they favour a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians.

In a speech to parliament this week, Mr Netanyahu said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a "dire threat" to the world and "a grave, direct threat on us, too". His hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was dismissive of the reports but added: "We are keeping all the options on the table."

The government official confirmed a report in the Haaretz daily that Mr Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak both favour an attack, but do not yet have the support of a majority of cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel's top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and Mossad spy agency, oppose military action.

It is generally understood that such a momentous decision would require a cabinet decision. Israel's 1981 destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor was preceded by a cabinet vote.

Mr Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev refused to comment on the issue but did say there is a "decision-making process which has stood the test of time... There have been precedents, and the process works".

etc

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i-EtGObmDAatSrF-TbAapA-S95mA?doc

It looks like at least one mayor decided not to use military force in an attempt to discourage the Occupy Movement.

LOS ANGELES — It had all the makings of a showdown: shouting protesters, police officers in riot gear, with batons drawn as they pushed forward to disperse the crowd. But in the end, as the deadline for Occupy Los Angeles protesters to clear their tents from City Hall passed early Monday morning, there was hardly a commotion. FULL STORY

But I'm not expecting this to start a wave of tolerance...

One point to remember about Ann Coulter is that she likes to stir up controversy. What she said was calculated. When some fool(s) actually carry out violent acts, she casually excuse herself, saying that she had nothing to do with the acts. I have a saying that an instigator is just as guilty as the person who commits the crimes. That's what Ann Coulter is, an instigator.

It seems the Occupy Movement has fallen off the front page of the news.  Even though the battle still wages on, the media seems less interested in focusing on it than it previously was.  There's a possibility that big money has pressured them, directly or indirectly, but odds are the public isn't buying up the stories like they once did.

It was a long time ago so I can't say my memory is 100% accurate, but I don't remember the anti-Viet Nam protests losing steam or even leveling out.  It just seemed to keep escalating.  And when Kent State happened, contrary to Coulter's recollection, outrage fueled the fires.

Today I see this article:

Occupy faces unknown future
After facing eviction from its home at Dilworth Plaza, occupiers contemplate the future of the movement

Occupy Philadelphia's eviction from Dilworth Plaza Wednesday morning has sparked a question central to its future — can the movement be sustained now that it no longer has a physical place to occupy?
FULL STORY

The Occupy people said the movement isn't dying, which you'd expect them to say, but for those who support it but aren't active participants, there does seem to be a certain level of success by local authorities in keeping the movement from growing.  And when a movement stops gaining momentum, that typically spells the death of the movement, or at least relegating it to the back burners.

When I started this thread, I wondered if the Occupy Movement had what it takes to impact history.  I believe it does.  But, unlike former movements that we now read about in history books, there doesn't seem to be sufficient fire under it to counter the resistance.  Maybe the fact that the Baby Boomers, who by their vast numbers became the first generation to win the war against their parents, are now in control and their numbers are still great.  Whatever, I'm seeing the police riot squads, supported by the Homeland Security forces and armaments, winning this one, even if by a small margin. 

Does anyone see it otherwise?

If you check you'll find that the major anti-war actions happened in the fall and spring.

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 02, 2011, 08:00:02 AM
  And when Kent State happened, contrary to Coulter's recollection, outrage fueled the fires.

Yes. As a young Wisconsin kid at the time I recall this incident which happened in nearby Ohio increased awareness about the Vietnam war and helped to add steam to the anti-war movement in my community.

Jennifer

Quote from: Jennifer on December 02, 2011, 12:07:46 PM
Yes. As a young Wisconsin kid at the time I recall this incident which happened in nearby Ohio increased awareness about the Vietnam war and helped to add steam to the anti-war movement in my community.

Jennifer

You're absolutely right on, Jennifer. People were tired of seeing their friends and family members coming home maimed, injured, or dead. It was the people who ended the Vietnam war.

The Occupy Movement may not be on the front pages but it's still going. Tactics may have to change. The problem is that most Americans still get their news and information from mainstream media. Mainstream is owned by the corporations the protesters are rebeling against. Alternative media is doing an adequate job but most folks don't read them.

Fukushima fell off the front pages but it's worse than ever. Folks in Japan are protesting;something that is taboo in that culture. Haiti still has problems almost two years after the massive earthquake. It's not in the mainstream media but it's still a big issue.

Fukushima fell off the front pages but it's worse than ever.

It's going to hit the water table in the next year or so.  And it's water table is the ocean.  Uncharted waters anyone?

David Rothchilds wants to force the world to use less energy etc 500 trillion$


500 trillions dollars in worth = half of the planets money controlled by the rothchilds = The Rothschilds 500 TRILLION DOLLARS      .............................

......................................... .................................................... ....................................

David de Rothschild Answers Alex Jones = David Rothchilds is going to force the world to stop consuming stuff because he wants to save the planet.

..................................... ................................................. ............................................
.
Get ready for the slow down and be able to survive without thinking all will be the same.. I have been trying to tell you this for yrs.. that's why i have done what i have done.. don't plan on spending and consuming like normal.. The money is being extracted from the people to force us to use less.. your home will only be worth very little but people who have land to grow food will have value... sell your city / suburban houses asap and buy farm land with a structure...

On The Daily Show last night, he interviewed Lawrence Lessig.  Lessig has written a book called "Republic, Lost" and in it he cites the fact that .05% of campaign contributors max their donations and those donations represent a staggeringly high percentage of total donations.  Maybe Occupy is really the 99.95%... 

Most of us know our angelic politicians would never be swayed by money so campaign contributions have no effect whatsoever on how they will vote. 

Lessig talked about things we can do to stop the influence of big money in politics and get the influence back in the hands of the people.  Obviously, we don't need any acts of Congress to make those changes, all we need to do is vote out those who don't truly represent us.  But most of us are too lazy to research those for whom we cast a vote.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."  In his book, Lessig talks about how we can strike at the roots of corruption in our government.  You can see him talk about that in part 2 of the Daily Show video.

There is already a web organization called Rootstrikers.  Will the Occupy people move indoors and take up residence there?

Yeah, Halliburton paid Dick Cheney over $20 million, but I'm sure it never affected his judgement.

What I do is research candidates backgrounds. Criteria are their voting record, funding, where they get their funding from, etc .  I found out by research that while Michelle Bachmann was railing against big governement, her husband borrowed 140 thousand dollars of government money for reparative therapy on gay and lesbian people.

I will be visiting Occupy Wall Street on Saturday. They are preparing to occupy another site. I will fill you in on what happened in the next few days.

Quote from: gennee on December 15, 2011, 11:48:33 AM

... while Michelle Bachmann was railing against big governement, her husband borrowed 140 thousand dollars of government money for reparative therapy on gay and lesbian people.
font]

How interesting, do you have a web site or reference

Quote from: Jen61 on December 15, 2011, 02:39:40 PM
How interesting, do you have a web site or reference

QuoteThe $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband's clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann's public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment.

QuoteBut an investigation earlier this month by Truth Wins Out1 exposed that this hateful practice is used by the "quality Christian counseling clinic" owned by Michele Bachmann and her husband -- a clinic which was recently discovered to have received over $137,000 in federal Medicaid funds, in addition to $24,000 in other state and federal funds.But an investigation earlier this month by Truth Wins Out1 exposed that this hateful practice is used by the "quality Christian counseling clinic" owned by Michele Bachmann and her husband -- a clinic which was recently discovered to have received over $137,000 in federal Medicaid funds, in addition to $24,000 in other state and federal funds.

Google it if you want the websites.  That's how I found the above.