>We have no choice, since the masses invariably have revolted when they decide that they have nothing to lose.
>
>It sounds to me like you believe that we should allow ourselves to be blackmailed into giving our resources away to the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd because eventually they will come and take it away by force. Nice.
>
>Have you put yourself in the shoes of somebody who got laid off and now relies on welfare to feed their family?
>
>Been there. Done that. Pulled myself up by my bootstraps.
>
>Easy enough to paint a picture of lazy slobs who don't want to work, but what about the millions who were working till their jobs got offshored and now are having their self-respect stomped into the dirt.
>
>There are plenty of lazy slobs who don't want to work. I also see pages and pages of jobs in the want ads that remain unfilled because some of these people who are having their self-respect stomped into the dirt don't want to take them because they can make almost as much money on the dole as they can by working for a living. I have seen business owners being interviewed on TV complaining about this very thing.
>
>Seems to me the cheapest option is to keep people fed and hope like heck that small business can start to grow more jobs to replace all the ones offshored by large business in exchange for short-term profit.
>
>Profit is not a dirty word. Tightline is in business to make money. I am certain that you are in business to make a profit - or do you give away your services for free? The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Perhaps we could create more jobs here if we had a more business-firendly environment.

I think you should consider the possibility that the Occupy Wall Street crowd, as you call them, acted out of genuine anger. They were angry that there has been so much economic suffering among ordinary Joes and Janes while the rich get richer at an unprecedented rate. The drunken sailors in the investment banking business brought the world to the brink of disaster with their risk-embracing moves and were rescued by we, the people. Yes, TARP wound up with all the money paid back and some extra. Just don't let us forget how close to the edge of the cliff they took us, peering over.

This election seems to be an especially stark choice. Neither side is as extreme as the other side tries to paint them. Still, the differences are profound. If you're for the rich, vote Republican. If you're not, vote Democratic.

Only halfway off topic, I have gotten over my "it might not be so bad" vibes about Paul Ryan. He is unquestionably charismatic and has given a jolt of energy to the grit your teeth and vote for him Romney campaign. He has a lot of wholesome midwestern qualities, qualities I admire. Unfortunately I have never been for his policies, not one of them. It was his Dickensian sweatshop fiscal positions that brought him to attention. (We don't need no stinking safety net, but we do need tax cuts). It turns out his social positions are just as loyal to the right wing faithful. So OK, we are a nation divided.

What I have a major problem with, way beyond policy positions, it that Rep. Ryan has a credibility issue. There were several pants on fire moments in his rousing speech last Wednesday. These have been widely documented. The one that bothered me most, and one that got much less attention, was his whopper about his marathon time. It's not exactly trivial because part of his carefully constructed story is that he is a fitness nut. He ran a marathon in the early 1990s. That much is undisputed, and hats off to him. The issue is his time. He said on the record that he ran sub 3 hours, which is a really good time. In fact he ran it in 4:01. That is not a bad time, middle of the pack, but take it from a middle of the pack guy who ran four marathons in that time range, you are not off by over an hour in your recollection. Your memory might be off slightly but it isn't off by over an hour.

UPDATE: http://www.examiner.com/article/paul-ryan-s-marathon-lie-causing-campaign-trouble