It's not just taking the money after the bill has been passed ---- it's hypocritically refusing to acknowledge that it did provide stimulus, ie. jobs and wages pumped back into the economy.   And it didn't just benefit "Democratic constituencies" unless that's supposed to include Whirlpool and all its customers eager for rebates on the products they bought. 

Two kinds of support, jazzy:

Support for the passing of the pork or support for getting a piece, since your constituents are on the hook for it whether they wanted it or not.

What was the vote count, anyway?

C'mon, cat, you know there was plenty of support for the stimulus bill from Republican congresscritters, Republican governors, Republican CEOs, future Republican candidates for president.     They just couldn't be honest about it.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/02/09/republican-stimulus-hypocrisy-they-knew-it-would-work

Republican Stimulus Hypocrisy: They Knew it Would Work

By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

According to this morning's exposé in the Washington Times, those very same Republican members of Congress who publicly condemned the 2009 stimulus bill--insisting to us all that it would neither stimulate the economy nor create jobs--privately believed just the opposite. These GOP representatives and senators were so sure that the stimulus bill would be effective, in fact, that they could not get to their desks fast enough to start peppering the federal government with requests for projects in their districts.

After using the Freedom of Information Act to acquire the congressional correspondence to just one federal agency--the Department of Agriculture--the Times discovered more than a dozen two-faced GOP members, including Rep. Joe "You Lie" Wilson, the South Carolina Republican who interrupted President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last year.

As the Times reported, Wilson voted against the stimulus but then "elbowed his way into the rush for federal stimulus cash" in a letter he sent to Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack.

"We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment," Wilson said on behalf of some hometown candidates for stimulus funds.

Then there is Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah. Not a bad guy. But he also assured us that the stimulus bill was awful, then wrote to Vilsack with a list of home state projects seeking stimulus cash. Like Wilson, Bennett was pretty sure that the stimulus would do what the Obama administration said it would. Which is no big surprise, considering that almost every economist with a brain on the planet endorses counter-cyclical stimulus plans to ease recessions and ward off depressions.

As the Times reported:

"On Feb. 13, 2009, Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, issued a statement criticizing the stimulus--but two days earlier, he privately forwarded to Mr. Vilsack a list of projects seeking stimulus money. "I believe the addition of federal funds to these projects would maximize the stimulative effect of these projects on the local economy," he wrote.

There is nothing new in this kind of hypocrisy. Since Yorktown, American politicians have been complaining in public about waste and spending, while scheming in private to bring home the bacon.

And you know who encourages them? We, the people. We hail the politicians and their brave talk about reducing the role of government, then nod with piggy approval when the local newspaper prints their picture at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for some Bridge to Nowhere.

And more hypocrisy:

According to his personal financial disclosure (view a copy here), Herman Cain supplements his income by being a board member for several large corporations. As a board member, he collected $202,500 from Agco Corporation, a farm products company, and $259,008 from Whirlpool Corporation (including options and a board salary). A review of stimulus spending records reveal that Cain’s companies have eagerly accepted stimulus money:

– Agco Corporation received up to $5 million of stimulus grants to develop “supply systems to handle and deliver high tonnage biomass feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels production.”

– Whirlpool Corporation received a $19,330,000 stimulus grant from the Department of Energy to develop SmartGrid solutions.

– Whirlpool launched a special offer to encourage customers to take advantage of the stimulus program’s energy efficient appliance program. The company advertised that certain Whirlpool, Maytag and KitchenAid appliances are available for rebate through the $300 million rebate program authorized by the stimulus.

– Whirlpool also received two stimulus grants of $2,042,700 to develop next generation energy efficient refrigerators.

Luckily for Cain, one of his corporations did not appear to receive any tainted stimulus money. According to his disclosure, Cain received $120,000 for his role on the board of Hallmark Cards Inc, the holiday greeting card company. A search by ThinkProgress reveals zero stimulus dollars directed to Hallmark.

Um, someone might want to tell the OWS coalition they need to head south. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/dc-is-nations-richest-met_n_1019913.html

Follow the $$ and head south on the 95, until you hit the Beltway, turn left and Occupy DC!!

It's a national tragedy when federal workers salary outearns the private sector. No wonder these folks have time to sit in a park for a month.  Maybe they could get a fed job.

This makes me want to gag: Total compensation for federal workers, including health care and other benefits, last year averaged $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009, according to Bloomberg News calculations of Commerce Department data. There were 170,467 federal employees in the District of Columbia as of June.

Yeah, the Republicans got us into two wars and expanded Medicare while cutting taxes --- and it's Democrats that are responsible for bankrupting the country.   Yada Yada.  So Wynn is Donald Trump, Las Vegas.   yawn. 

 It must be confusing right now for the Republican frontrunner, being urged by advisors on the one hand to say things like ..."And so I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my own view is, boy I understand how those people feel…" and yet seeing the right-wing noise machine stir up hysterical claims that the OWS ultimate goal is "seizure" of private assets.     

I think what's happening is some of the struggling wage slaves in RedState's "53 percent" are getting wind that they have quite a bit in common with their 70-hour-work-week-no-health-care brethren at  "wearethe99 percent" and the righties have to get the Red Scare going big time.

Yup: Blue collar whites do support Occupy Wall Street

You need to go explore the "General Assembly" website (nycga) to really get the flavor of OWS--"direct democracy," "consensus," etc. if you haven't already. Make sure you watch the video on the page I referenced below--wish I knew how to do clickable links here. :(

Make sure also to check out takethesquare.net to learn more about the "global revolution."

About

The NYC General Assembly is composed of dozens of groups working together to organize and set the vision for the #occupywallstreet movement. This is our official website.

New York City General Assemblies are an open, participatory and horizontally organized process through which we are building the capacity to constitute ourselves in public as autonomous collective forces within and against the constant crises of our times.

Please read the Principles of Solidarity working draft.

To find out more about recent items presented at the General Assembly, please read the General Assembly minutes.

Interested in starting your own General Assembly in your area? Here is a quick guide to starting a General Assembly from Takethesquare.net.

http://www.nycga.net/about/

-- Edited by hope on Wednesday 19th of October 2011 12:29:26 PM

I see your point that there's a far-left anti-capitalism element to the OWS street-campers.....the ones with the youth and committment to sleep outside on the ground are more "out there" than the moderate-leaning supporters.   But this movement would have stayed tiny as it began if it wasn't tapping into widespread dissatisfaction with Wall Street power and its grip on our government.

They wouldn't be getting donations from all over the country and the crowds wouldn't be swelling into the thousands on the weekends.  There wouldn't be national polls showing support.

I wouldn't venture to predict any impact on the 2012 election yet, but I do think that the OWS protests will put the issue of Wall Street regulation front and center --- who comes out strongly for reining in TBTF institutions to protect small investors from high-risk speculation and who is on the side of repealing reforms and giving those institutions a free hand to continue business as usual.

Don't shoot the messenger. The entire Tea Party was/is painted racist by many. People here proclaimed it had its roots in racism. Well, read up on Adbusters. We'll see how many of these people will be forced to leave or give up their signs.

Occupy Wall Street: Does anyone care about the anti-Semitism?

In the millions of pixels devoted to the radical Occupy Wall Streeters, virtually nothing has been said about its anti-Semitic elements. The conservative Emergency Committee for Israel is out with an eye-popping ad:

Those vile scenes have been noticed in Israel as well. Israel Today observes:

A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US. . . .

In Los Angeles, California, protester Patricia McAllister, who identified herself as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District (we can only hope she is not an educator), had this to say:

“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”

On the American Nazi Party website, leader Rocky Suhayda voiced support for “Occupy Wall St.” and asked, “Who hold the wealth and power in this country? The Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes this filth happen? The Judeo-Capitalists.”

One of [the] people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.

Back in New York, another protester insisted that “a small ethnic group constitutes almost all of the hedge fund managers and bankers on Wall St. They are all Jewish. There is a conspiracy in this country where Jews control the media, finances… They have pooled their money together in order to take control of America.”

This does not mean all or even most of the OWS protesters are anti-Semitic, but the prominent liberal leaders who have shown sympathy for their cause have failed to speak out, as have the other elements within the group. Israel Today reports: “More than the few Occupy Wall St. anti-Semites themselves, it is the lack of a clear and firm repudiation of their hateful rhetoric by the mainstream American media and political leaders that has a growing number of Israelis and Jews on edge.”

You will recall that reports of alleged anti-black comments (never verified) from Tea Party groups brought howls from Democrats and the media. But not this time, when Jews are the object of the vilification (documented on film) and it’s the left who is protesting and engaging in behavior that would have earned the Tea Partyers condemnation had they engaged in the same conduct.

The lefty mob is still trying to decide whether to make “demands,” so perhaps they are otherwise occupied. But for respectable politicians and media outlets, where is the outrage?

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): The Anti-Defamation League has called on “organizers, participants and supporters of these rallies to condemn such bigoted statements clearly and forcefully

Reuters debunking its own Soros story by the way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/us-wallstreet-protests-funding-idUSTRE79D01Q20111014

Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests

(Reuters) - George Soros isn't a financial backer of the Wall Street protests, despite speculation by critics including radio host Rush Limbaugh that the billionaire investor has helped fuel the anti-capitalist movement.

On the contrary, tom, I have never even looked into the Tea Party, although I would admit that from a cultural standpoint I am probably more amenable to them (I like people who follow the law and clean up after themselves.) But I don't consider myself a Tea Partier. I am for Romney soley because I want to save this country from the far left. I am TICKED that Obama and team are now labeling Romney as a "one percenter." I think this is offensive and obnoxious. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth. It has done more good than any of you are willing to admit, from cancer research, to academic endowments, to hospitals and on and on.

I'd say it's pretty much a toss-up as to what has done more good in this country: government or private wealth.

Are there excesses? Of course. Is it time to stop and seriously ponder how to fix things? Yes.

But these joksters don't have the answer, in my opinion.

I guess I'm missing the logic of the protests: do they really think that Wall Streeters are going to monitor themselves and put themselves in jail? Do they think Wall Streeters are going to lobby to change a tax code which benefits themselves?  Do they think that Wall Streeters enact laws? Do they truly want economic justice ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") because they really have no desire to become wealthy themselves? Are they willing to cut entitlements to help balance the budget and make the country healthier economically? Do they really, as I have heard many say, want to eliminate between 40% and 100% of defense spending? It's good old-fashioned far-left rabble-rousing, with a bit of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure. At least the Tea Party had the good sense to take aim at the logical culprit. The OSWers haven't even yet been able to articulate their grievances. How is one supposed to believe it's anything other than class envy? Yes, they're angry--full of angry class-envy.

From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world

(Reuters) - It all started innocuously enough with a July 13 blog post urging people to #OccupyWallStreet, as though such a thing (Twitter hashtag and all) were possible.

It turns out, with enough momentum and a keen sense of how to use social media, it actually is.

The Occupy movement, decentralized and leaderless, has mobilized thousands of people around the world almost exclusively via the Internet. To a large degree through Twitter, and also with platforms like Facebook and Meetup, crowds have connected and gathered.

As with any movement, a spark is needed to start word spreading. SocialFlow, a social media marketing company, did an analysis for Reuters of the history of the Occupy hashtag on Twitter and the ways it spread and took root.

The first apparent mention was that July 13 blog post by activist group Adbusters (r.reuters.com/suc54s) but the idea was slow to get traction.

The next Twitter mention was on July 20 (r.reuters.com/tuc54s) from a Costa Rican film producer named Francisco Guerrero, linking to a blog post on a site called Wake Up from Your Slumber that reiterated the Adbusters call to action (r.reuters.com/vuc54s).

The site, founded in 2006 "to expose America's fraudulent monetary system and the evil of charging interest on money loaned," is a reference to the biblical verse Romans 13:11 that reads in part: "The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed."

Guerrero's post was retweeted once and then there was silence until two July 23 tweets -- one from the Spanish user Gurzbo (r.reuters.com/wuc54s) and one from a retired high school chemistry teacher in Long Island, New York named Cindy tweeting as gemswinc. (r.reuters.com/xuc54s)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-wallstreet-protests-social-idUSTRE79G6E420111017

-- Edited by hope on Monday 17th of October 2011 03:00:44 PM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 17th of October 2011 03:13:40 PM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 17th of October 2011 03:15:01 PM

 imo, ows is about opportunities. 

yes everyone can make opportunities but having wealth with minimal risk is a lot better.

thinking of this, one can achieve this in a variety of ways. 

I really find it hard to believe that the majority of these people understand the economics involved here as well as, say, you do, jazzy. The park is not made up of economic geniuses. So no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise--for most it's simply a belief in "economic justice" and redistribution of wealth. The best way to get people fired up about that is through class envy--pure and simple. I believe this has been true historically.  I don't think people on CNN are painting a picture of the protest as being made up of only dirty, lazy kids either; in fact, they've gone to pains to point out there are many middle-aged, middle class people there.

I believe I heard there were 175 or more people arrested in Chicago yesterday. How many Tea Partiers were arrested? It's about perception. People form their own perceptions, and don't need Fox or Limbaugh to tell them what to think contrary to what the left is always telling us. It's on tv for them to see.

Team Obama has already moved to paint Romney as part of the 1% - the face of Wall Street. Apparently they have no shame.

I'd like to see a Democratic party without the far, far left and a Republican Party without the far, far right.

I want a centrist party that doesn't get warped and destroyed from within by its extreme wings.

Reincarnate Teddy Roosevelt!

BD11, I see this too. 

I think we could be better off having at least 4-5, political parties. A far-right, a mddle conservative, a middle democratic, a far left, and a green. 

  It's okay by me if the Democrats get aligned with this movement --- its concerns and passions are real and they have legs.

  You want proof that there's more to it than hippie, commie, union whiners, losers etc?   Check out how even Erick Erickson on his blog is opining that maybe Republicans had better get on the bandwagon and ease up on the "mobs" rhetoric  and the "un-American" slander and address this populist anger.

Here's the clearest synopsis I've seen about what's behind the protests. (Hint: it's  really not, despite what Fox and friends and even CNN imply, about wanting free stuff and cradle-to-grave handouts, it's not class envy or down with corporations.) With any luck, it'll go viral.    

Dear Wall Street, this is why the people are angry:

 Josh Brown is one of those one-percenters. He's an investment adviser at Fusion Analytics in Manhattan. If you think you know what his take on all this is going to be, here's his open letter to the banks that don't seem to get why people are mad.

   In 2008, the American people were told that if they didn't bail out the banks, their way of life would never be the same. In no uncertain terms, our leaders told us anything short of saving these insolvent banks would result in a Depression to the American public. We had to do it!

At our darkest hour we gave these banks every single thing they asked for. We allowed investment banks to borrow money at zero percent interest rate, directly from the Fed. We gave them taxpayer cash right onto their balance sheets. We allowed them to suspend account rules and pretend that the toxic sludge they were carrying was worth 100 cents on the dollar. Anything to stave off insolvency. We left thousands of executives in place at these firms. Nobody went to jail, not a single perp walk. I can't even think of a single example of someone being fired. People resigned with full benefits and pensions, as though it were a job well done.

The American taxpayer kicked in over a trillion dollars to help make all of this happen.

But the banks didn't hold up their end of the bargain. The banks didn't seize this opportunity, this second chance to re-enter society as a constructive agent of commerce. Instead, they went back to business as usual. With $20 billion in bonuses paid during 2009. Another $20 billion in bonuses paid in 2010. And they did this with the profits they earned from zero percent interest rates that actually acted as a tax on the rest of the economy.

Instead of coming back and working with this economy to get back on its feet, they hired lobbyists by the dozen to fight tooth and nail against any efforts whatsoever to bring common sense regulation to the financial industry. Instead of coming back and working with people, they hired an army of robosigners to process millions of foreclosures. In many cases, without even having the proper paperwork to evict the homeowners.

Instead, the banks announced layoffs in the tens of thousands, so that executives at the top of the pile could maintain their outrageous levels of compensation.

We bailed out Wall Street to avoid Depression, but three years later, millions of Americans are in a living hell. This is why they're enraged, this why they're assembling, this is why they hate you. Why for the first time in 50 years, the people are coming out in the streets and they're saying, "Enough."

I don't make any predictions about whether this movement will help Democrats, even thought they will use it as a wedge against Republicans.  I do think it's going to be a problem for the party that decides to be stubbornly obtuse about how much anger exists at Wall Street and how much discontent the protests represent among average Americans who are barely treading water, and sinking,  three years after the financial meltdown. 

 Heck, I'm still angry about it and we have seen our investments improve since then. 

-- Edited by jazzy on Sunday 16th of October 2011 10:08:09 PM