Why are you defending the rich? I am really curious?
-- Because being "rich" doesn't mean you made your money illegally, "crushed the little man" to get it, haven't done your part, or don't deserve what you have earned.
Yes, there are some dirtbags, but as I said, there are scores who earned what they made and pay their fair share in taxes.
The top 1% pays 38% of all taxes
The top 10% pays 70%.
Half of all Americans pay no income taxes.
A blanket condemnation of this group serves no one.
I am also interested in the incidents of wealth being redistributed 'many times' - name a few.
-- The latest is in Venezuela. Food shortages. Hoarding. Supression and jailing of opposition. Closing of opposition newspapers and TV stations.
Nationalizing (stealing) of foreign resources in the country.
I am curious if you can name one society (short of a monarchy) where it HAS worked.
I do not think that the protesters are opposed to picketing the White House.
-- Then why don't they? I am not making this up.
A simple Google search shows that Obama has collected (and is currently collecting) more campaign contributions from Wall Street than any other politician in history.
Seems to me that there is a double standard in play - it's ok for the Tea Party to protest the White House for pressuring the rich to pay taxes, but not ok for the poor and people with 100s of thousands of dollars in school debt to protest? Why is this?
-- I do not recall any Tea Party protests outside the White House, but as you said, that is a person's right.
The Tea Party has never protested the White house for pressuring the rich to pay taxes. And unlike OWS, they have done it peacefully and with no criminal activity.
The Tea Party HAVE protested about government waste, politicians not doing the will of the people, opposition to ObamaCare, etc. but NOT about pressuring the rich to pay taxes. The rich ALREADY pay taxes. As I said, the top 1% already pay 38% of all taxes.
As far as "100s of thousands of dollars in school debt" I find that a specious argument.
First off, it is about personal responsibility. You sign to accept a loan, paying it back at such-and-such percentage over such-and-such number of years. Same as a car loan or a mortgage. NO ONE was surpised at the size of their loan or how much it would cost to pay back.
Second, I worked my way through college. I had one scholarship for $1500.00 which covered less than one quarter. I worked as a salesman at a discount store while going to classes. I saved my road construction money from over the summer, etc. etc. etc.
It took four years and four months, but I graduated. No college loans. No money from the folks. Nothing.
College loans are not a "rite of passage" in order to graduate from college.
Also, if you are set on using loans, put them towards a major that will actually help pay them back.
$70,000 in loans to get a History or Women's Study or Music degree is hardly going to afford you the opportunity to stay on top of your payments.
If you have to take a quarter off to work flipping burgers it will help you pay cash, not ring up huge loans, and you will actually have some work experience to put on your first resume' after college.
Those whining about their college loans are the same ones who willfully signed up for those loans.
My sympathy meter pegs out at zero for those guys. It's called 'responsibility.'
Hear is an interesting fact:
PBS
This Day in History: On this day in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the Civil Works Administration, a component of his New Deal that helped America pull through the Great Depression of the 1930s by creating millions of construction jobs for unemployed Americans.
-- And if Mr. Obama had used more than 6% of his initial $780 Billion "Jobs Stimulus" for necessary infrastructure work (bridges, roads, dams, etc.) instead of the tripe it actually went to, then his promise of it ensuring that unemployment would not exceed 8% might have actually turned out to be true.
As it is, unemployment has been at or above 9% for 28 of the last 30 months.
The...Longest...Stretch...Since...The...Great...Depression.
Still, I find it strange that you would select FDR as a role model since his failed policies extended the Depression for the United States seven years longer than it should have been:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
If it wasn't for WWII, it would have taken even longer.