Off-Topic

Well all of those people are idiots. If you are arguing that the 97.8% is necessary for the 2.2% to achieve their causes then we can just agree to disagree.

LOL at people who try to make everything about the Constitution (and I say that as someone who is probably a bigger Constitutional nerd than anyone else here). Do you also oppose your tax dollars being spent on high school education? Elementary school education? After all, if you don't have kids, why should you subsidize the schooling of those who do? Where does it say in the Constitution that people are entitled to any schooling at all?

EVERYONE thinks the government should spend money on thinks that are hardly guaranteed in the Constitution. The main, if not only, disagreement is how much money to spend and on what. It's probably important to recognize that basic fact.

And my only point is that in the absence of being fair and reasonable, what you're doing is no better than what she's doing. She holds up a sign somewhere railing against something -- you post about it on the internet railing against something. What's the difference?

As to the merits, why is it "obvious" that she's arguing for a major expansion of the Pell Grant program when there is a legitimate, ongoing discussion about billions in proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program? Why couldn't she simply be saying some version of "if Banks deserved billions of dollars each from the government, my daughter deserves the chance to earn $5000 for a college education?" Is that an absurd position to hold at a rally criticizing the priorities our society places on things?

[And once again, I've made dozens of posts here criticizing these protestors in general, and I'm a free market capitalist at heart, so I'm not necessarily someone sympathetic to arguments about an even bigger government ... but I'm not sure everything that everyone is saying at these rallies is necessarily deserving of scorn and ridicule.]

That's great, but that just proves my point. We're simply talking about what people prefer -- not anything that is unconstitutional. You want A dollars spent on Y. Someone else wants B dollars spent on Z. Criticizing someone else for wanting B dollars spent on Z because Z is not required by the Constitution is stupid. Roads, hospitals, scientific research, or 99.999% of things that the federal government spends money on aren't required by the Constitution either.

It makes her wrong thinking the bank bail outs were the same thing as giving money away for people to go to college. And for the record, I doubt she was saying that.

imo, education shouldn't be a federal matter in the first place.

Thats where terps99% is so wrong. The tea party movement is around because they are tired of congress picking the winners and losers with tax money we don't have enough of. The republicans who are voting for increasing federal programs and taxes are being thrown out of office.

Why? Do you want a right wing nut job in charge of science education in this country? Do you really think someone in DC that was a political hire knows how schools should be run in both San Antonio and Bizmark? Most of the money for the dept of eduction is wasted on people that really do nothing for schools.

You and I view the role of the federal government differently (under this Constitution), so yes, we will disagree on matters such as this. In my opinion, the federal government has no authority to "increase the productivity of its citizens", or any other decisions that affect their lives other than what is clearly mandated in the Constitution as a power of the federal government. I blame the horribly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause by Congress, POTUS and the courts for much of that expansion of government, as well as the ignoring of the 10th Amendment.
.
.
NOTE TO TERPS99 - I'm not interested in getting into a constitution argument with you, so don't even try.

And as an aside, has this thread already discussed the abundance of topless, and/or body-painted, protesters?

My wife and I are going to NYC Friday for the weekend. They better stay TF out of the way and not ruin our weekend. Anyone up for Victor's Friday night?

I'm talking about the perception that the bailouts were free money given to banks with no obligation re-pay. That is factually incorrect.