• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy Philadelphia costs city $400,000 in police surveillance

Occupy Philadelphia costs city $400,000 in police surveillance - Philly.com

Links to the costs to other cities

Google

At a cost of $400,000 a week, the cost to the city's residents could quickly run into millions of dollars at a time when the city has already been forced to cut back on some services because of declining revenues. Should these protesters and those in other cities be required to cover the costs to the city, so that its residents, often those most vulnerable and dependent on city services, do not have to face further cutbacks because of Occupy Philadelphia?

If the police minded their own damn business, instead of attempting to disrupt and intimidate peaceful protests, the cost to the city would be ZERO.
 
Only about half of TARP has been paid back and estimates are after all is said and TARP will cost about 50 billion.

Whose estimate made when? Last March, the Treasury claimed that it had already realized a profit of $6 billion from the bank bailout and expected that to grow to a profit of $20 billion. The CBO last March said it expected a loss of about $19 billion from the auto bailout and mortgage modification program.
 
It's a free country, they can protest where they like. It's not like they need to BE in Washington for Washington to see them. It's called TV...transmits images over great distances.

Do you genuinely feel that protesting in Philly bothers the politicians in Washington? Is that the message you're getting back from Barrack Obama and his administration?
 
Do you genuinely feel that protesting in Philly bothers the politicians in Washington?

As much as those politicians would be bothered by them protesting in DC, yes. I don't think that will change.
 
Whose estimate made when? Last March, the Treasury claimed that it had already realized a profit of $6 billion from the bank bailout and expected that to grow to a profit of $20 billion. The CBO last March said it expected a loss of about $19 billion from the auto bailout and mortgage modification program.

You are right. I was wasn't updated.
 
If the police minded their own damn business, instead of attempting to disrupt and intimidate peaceful protests, the cost to the city would be ZERO.

There is no Constitutional right to squat on city property no matter how angry they are about things they don't understand, so it is legal and proper for the police to monitor these encampments and to remove them at the discretion of the city government.
 
There is no Constitutional right to squat on city property no matter how angry they are about things they don't understand, so it is legal and proper for the police to monitor these encampments and to remove them at the discretion of the city government.

So if the city government likes them they can stay.
 
As much as those politicians would be bothered by them protesting in DC, yes. I don't think that will change.

BHO has received the message and lumps these protesters in with the Tea Party, and of course he feels everyone's dissatisfaction, etc, and implies he's just the guy who can set things right.

These are the 'useful idiots' doing their usual thing yet again, with no idea what's actually going on around them. Certainly the dumbing down of the US educational system has been a contributing factor in this OWS mess.
 
Yes it will. As of this point I don't really think the Occupiers have the balls to bleed for their cause, but then again the Police don't seem to have the balls to test that theory either.
Is it lack of balls, or do LEO's paychecks plant them firmly in the 99%?
 
There is no Constitutional right to squat on city property no matter how angry they are about things they don't understand, so it is legal and proper for the police to monitor these encampments and to remove them at the discretion of the city government.

Zoning bylaws should be observed and enforced. Protesting should not involve setting up housekeeping co-op.
 
BHO has received the message and lumps these protesters in with the Tea Party, and of course he feels everyone's dissatisfaction, etc, and implies he's just the guy who can set things right.

These are the 'useful idiots' doing their usual thing yet again, with no idea what's actually going on around them. Certainly the dumbing down of the US educational system has been a contributing factor in this OWS mess.

I don't think so. The OWS is a return in many senses to people paying attention.
 
I think you are missing the OWSers point. They feel as though the bailout benefited the wealthiest disproportionately. And that these people were the very same ones whom brought the nation's and the world's financial system to the brink of collapse.

But of course that's nonsense. It is as easy to argue that government agencies that never questioned the AAA ratings the mortgage backed derivatives received were responsible for the financial crisis and the resultant recession. The bank bailout saved at least hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the US and, since the major financial institutions that were bailed out were highly popular publicly owned corporations, it preserved the value of countless 401k's and pension funds. A relative handful of wealthy executives in the financial industry benefited from the bank bailout along with millions and millions of Americans who were not wealthy.
 
So if the city government likes them they can stay.

Exactly. If the city government decides the cost of preventing the Occupy people from becoming a threat to public health or safety or to activities, such as access to government offices or commerce or shopping, etc., that benefit the city's residents, they can remove them from their encampments. This does not mean they can't return the next day and protest their hearts out over the slogan of the day; it just means they can't squat on city property or private property with impunity.
 
Exactly. If the city government decides the cost of preventing the Occupy people from becoming a threat to public health or safety or to activities, such as access to government offices or commerce or shopping, etc., that benefit the city's residents, they can remove them from their encampments. This does not mean they can't return the next day and protest their hearts out over the slogan of the day; it just means they can't squat on city property or private property with impunity.

What if the claim is that their general presence does any of those things? Can they indefinitely keep protesters away?
 
What is bad is getting into the situation where they are needed.
Right...so taking out home loans you cant afford...bad. Taking out student loans (especially the cash out portion) with no intent to pay them back...bad. Failed business models...bad. Im in complete agreement! Houston...we have common ground.
 
Is it lack of balls, or do LEO's paychecks plant them firmly in the 99%?
How much would you like to bet that they are comfortably ABOVE the 50%?
 
Maybe we could put a tax on financial transactions to replace the funds and then some.

Great idea! How much more do you want people to pay for mortgages, auto loans, etc.?
 
Right...so taking out home loans you cant afford...bad. Taking out student loans (especially the cash out portion) with no intent to pay them back...bad. Failed business models...bad. Im in complete agreement! Houston...we have common ground.

Yeah the banks who are suppose to be experts in their field have no blame in this fiasco. After all they were making money hand over fist!
 
Yeah the banks who are suppose to be experts in their field have no blame in this fiasco. After all they were making money hand over fist!
Which part of failed business models did you miss?
 
Yeah the banks who are suppose to be experts in their field have no blame in this fiasco. After all they were making money hand over fist!

That's kinda part of the reason you need a bit of regulation. If they can make money hand over fist, and we can't allow them to "fail"; then there is no market force to prevent unhealthy and risky behavior in the market in order to make huge short term gains. There's no long term control. They're there to make money and if one bank is acting horribly, leveraging beyond what is sustainable by the market long term; but making crap loads of money...how are the other banks NOT supposed to do the same? You can't let them make money hand over fist while you sit there doing nothing.

When there are no natural market forces to prevent the system from breaking, a bit of government law/regulation will do the job.
 
So you think the Philly OWS protesters should foot the bill for Police overtime?

Nuts.

I think it is legitimate for the city government to demand they pay their fair share of the costs they are generating and to remove their encampment if they refuse. However, Philadelphia is an extremely liberal city and the city government is even allowing the Occupy people to plug into City Hall's power supply to recharge their cell phones, computers, etc. on the promise they will pay for it when the bill comes due. Of course, since they claim to have no leaders, it is not clear what such a promise is worth.
 
That's kinda part of the reason you need a bit of regulation. If they can make money hand over fist, and we can't allow them to "fail"; then there is no market force to prevent unhealthy and risky behavior in the market in order to make huge short term gains. There's no long term control. They're there to make money and if one bank is acting horribly, leveraging beyond what is sustainable by the market long term; but making crap loads of money...how are the other banks NOT supposed to do the same? You can't let them make money hand over fist while you sit there doing nothing.

When there are no natural market forces to prevent the system from breaking, a bit of government law/regulation will do the job.
Nah...no regulation changes. all they needed (and shoudl still do) to do was to pass three simple changes...change one...banks MAY NOT sell mortgages, and rule two...if a Bank goes under the property goes to the borrower, free and clear. Change three, no subprime or ARM foreclosures. Banks would have been forced to handle their business. We would be 5 years into recovery by now.
 
Apparently the Occupy peopel think everyone else should pay the cost so it will be free for them.

They do? Or is this just some assumption on your part because you don't like what they're protesting? Somehow I feel it's more likely the latter. Regardless, this is a consequence of freedom. Deal with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom