Suburban Humor?: “Occupy Temecula General Assembly” and what gets your vote for 2012?

Forgive the tongue-in-cheek response I have to this scene on the corner of Ynez Road and Rancho California in Temecula this past weekend. There is something to make one chuckle at seeing a “Occupy Temecula General Assembly” sign placed on an empty set of chairs. Really, there is.

So, it appears that the Occupy Wall Street movement has spread. After reading in the Los Angeles Times front page about how the lawn and grounds near city hall are in disrepair due to the inhabitants I went for a short drive through Temecula, California–an Inland Empire suburb of 100,000 people. Surely, I would not expect this “movement” to be here. But, I was wrong.

I would not call three empty camping chairs an occupation, but this IS the suburbs. And, any “general assembly” would seem to be populated beyond this, but I could not visibly see them. However, on the other corner Ron Paul demonstrators were not getting along with those holding “Corporate Greed” signs, even though these groups may have more in common than they know. But, alas I am confused. Is Ron Paul part of the occupation, too?

So, my question to my reader, both the 1% to 99%-ers, is this: what issue with the economy is going to influence your voting this political season? Is it corporate greed, stopping bailouts, balancing the budget, job creation or a new taxation code?

Share:
Rich Kirkpatrick

Rich Kirkpatrick

Writer, Speaker, and Musician. Rich Kirkpatrick was recently rated #13 of the “Top 75 Religion Bloggers” by Newsmax.com, having also received recognition by Worship Leader Magazine as “Editor’s Choice” for the “Best of the Best” of blogs in 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

55 comments

  1. I’m looking for spending cuts more than anything. It will have an immediate effect.
    Long term i’d like to see the dissolving of central banking…it is the reason we fought the revolutionary war afterall

    1. Thanks Vince for chiming in.
      I am looking for spending moderation, for sure as where my voting goes on economics.

      Central Bank dissolution might make sense, if there were iterative steps to a better system. So far, I have not heard of anything better. Going back to the regulation that worked is a start in the interim. 

      Long term, what would replace a central bank?

      1. Finite currency and minimized loans regulated by government and monitored by the people. An economy cannot grow infinitely… but responsible growth can work

  2. I’m looking for spending cuts more than anything. It will have an immediate effect.
    Long term i’d like to see the dissolving of central banking…it is the reason we fought the revolutionary war afterall

    1. Thanks Vince for chiming in.
      I am looking for spending moderation, for sure as where my voting goes on economics.
      Central Bank dissolution might make sense, if there were iterative steps to a better system. So far, I have not heard of anything better. Going back to the regulation that worked is a start in the interim. 
      Long term, what would replace a central bank?

      1. Finite currency and minimized loans regulated by government and monitored by the people. An economy cannot grow infinitely… but responsible growth can work

  3. I’m looking for spending cuts more than anything. It will have an immediate effect.
    Long term i’d like to see the dissolving of central banking…it is the reason we fought the revolutionary war afterall

    1. Thanks Vince for chiming in.
      I am looking for spending moderation, for sure as where my voting goes on economics.

      Central Bank dissolution might make sense, if there were iterative steps to a better system. So far, I have not heard of anything better. Going back to the regulation that worked is a start in the interim. 

      Long term, what would replace a central bank?

      1. Finite currency and minimized loans regulated by government and monitored by the people. An economy cannot grow infinitely… but responsible growth can work

  4. I’m looking for spending cuts more than anything. It will have an immediate effect.
    Long term i’d like to see the dissolving of central banking…it is the reason we fought the revolutionary war afterall

    1. Thanks Vince for chiming in.
      I am looking for spending moderation, for sure as where my voting goes on economics.

      Central Bank dissolution might make sense, if there were iterative steps to a better system. So far, I have not heard of anything better. Going back to the regulation that worked is a start in the interim. 

      Long term, what would replace a central bank?

      1. Finite currency and minimized loans regulated by government and monitored by the people. An economy cannot grow infinitely… but responsible growth can work

  5. I’m looking for spending cuts more than anything. It will have an immediate effect.
    Long term i’d like to see the dissolving of central banking…it is the reason we fought the revolutionary war afterall

    1. Thanks Vince for chiming in.
      I am looking for spending moderation, for sure as where my voting goes on economics.

      Central Bank dissolution might make sense, if there were iterative steps to a better system. So far, I have not heard of anything better. Going back to the regulation that worked is a start in the interim. 

      Long term, what would replace a central bank?

      1. Finite currency and minimized loans regulated by government and monitored by the people. An economy cannot grow infinitely… but responsible growth can work

  6. I will admit I’m probably in the 1%, so with that disclaimer, I’m interested in seeing a balanced budget — and a realistic plan to get us there which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  I grudgingly agree to pay more, as I don’t think we can get there from here without wealthier Americans shouldering more of the burden.  The only major rewrite of the tax code is being advocated by Herman Cain, and I see his proposal as completely unworkable.  The rest is just tinkering with the old system, which is probably the direction we should go, anyway.
    I’ll further add that I don’t think the government really creates jobs — other than direct spending for things — a short term fix at best, and even then only if they do it right (which the last stimulus package from 2009 was a poor example).  Sometimes government spending can be an important shot in the arm, but long term job creation comes from the private sector, and that happens best when the environment is conducive to business.  Unfortunately, it takes time for the private sector to change directions, and voters are impatient, so elected officials try to make things “happen” even though their steering wheel is not well connected to the problem.

    All this stuff about bailouts is a bunch of hot air.  TARP, though widely disparaged, was actually highly successful, and the vast majority of the money has already been repaid.  Without it, we would have had a run on banks, and a nine percent unemployment rate would now be looking like a distant dream.

    1. Thanks Tom for your comment. 
      I am with you on balancing the budget with a combo of anything that can get us there. Now, I guess I was slow because I really do not understand Herman Cain’s plan at this point. I will have to read up more on that.

      I do appreciate your point about TARP. Now, I would hope to see a stimulus package that did more public works–roads, airports, speed trains. That would not pay us back right away, except it might create jobs in some areas badly hit in the short term.

      One still scary area is the housing market’s ghost inventory. Once released, we could be bleeding again. I have not heard much talk about that issue.

  7. I will admit I’m probably in the 1%, so with that disclaimer, I’m interested in seeing a balanced budget — and a realistic plan to get us there which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  I grudgingly agree to pay more, as I don’t think we can get there from here without wealthier Americans shouldering more of the burden.  The only major rewrite of the tax code is being advocated by Herman Cain, and I see his proposal as completely unworkable.  The rest is just tinkering with the old system, which is probably the direction we should go, anyway.
    I’ll further add that I don’t think the government really creates jobs — other than direct spending for things — a short term fix at best, and even then only if they do it right (which the last stimulus package from 2009 was a poor example).  Sometimes government spending can be an important shot in the arm, but long term job creation comes from the private sector, and that happens best when the environment is conducive to business.  Unfortunately, it takes time for the private sector to change directions, and voters are impatient, so elected officials try to make things “happen” even though their steering wheel is not well connected to the problem.
    All this stuff about bailouts is a bunch of hot air.  TARP, though widely disparaged, was actually highly successful, and the vast majority of the money has already been repaid.  Without it, we would have had a run on banks, and a nine percent unemployment rate would now be looking like a distant dream.

    1. Thanks Tom for your comment. 
      I am with you on balancing the budget with a combo of anything that can get us there. Now, I guess I was slow because I really do not understand Herman Cain’s plan at this point. I will have to read up more on that.
      I do appreciate your point about TARP. Now, I would hope to see a stimulus package that did more public works–roads, airports, speed trains. That would not pay us back right away, except it might create jobs in some areas badly hit in the short term.
      One still scary area is the housing market’s ghost inventory. Once released, we could be bleeding again. I have not heard much talk about that issue.

  8. I will admit I’m probably in the 1%, so with that disclaimer, I’m interested in seeing a balanced budget — and a realistic plan to get us there which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  I grudgingly agree to pay more, as I don’t think we can get there from here without wealthier Americans shouldering more of the burden.  The only major rewrite of the tax code is being advocated by Herman Cain, and I see his proposal as completely unworkable.  The rest is just tinkering with the old system, which is probably the direction we should go, anyway.
    I’ll further add that I don’t think the government really creates jobs — other than direct spending for things — a short term fix at best, and even then only if they do it right (which the last stimulus package from 2009 was a poor example).  Sometimes government spending can be an important shot in the arm, but long term job creation comes from the private sector, and that happens best when the environment is conducive to business.  Unfortunately, it takes time for the private sector to change directions, and voters are impatient, so elected officials try to make things “happen” even though their steering wheel is not well connected to the problem.

    All this stuff about bailouts is a bunch of hot air.  TARP, though widely disparaged, was actually highly successful, and the vast majority of the money has already been repaid.  Without it, we would have had a run on banks, and a nine percent unemployment rate would now be looking like a distant dream.

    1. Thanks Tom for your comment. 
      I am with you on balancing the budget with a combo of anything that can get us there. Now, I guess I was slow because I really do not understand Herman Cain’s plan at this point. I will have to read up more on that.

      I do appreciate your point about TARP. Now, I would hope to see a stimulus package that did more public works–roads, airports, speed trains. That would not pay us back right away, except it might create jobs in some areas badly hit in the short term.

      One still scary area is the housing market’s ghost inventory. Once released, we could be bleeding again. I have not heard much talk about that issue.

  9. I will admit I’m probably in the 1%, so with that disclaimer, I’m interested in seeing a balanced budget — and a realistic plan to get us there which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  I grudgingly agree to pay more, as I don’t think we can get there from here without wealthier Americans shouldering more of the burden.  The only major rewrite of the tax code is being advocated by Herman Cain, and I see his proposal as completely unworkable.  The rest is just tinkering with the old system, which is probably the direction we should go, anyway.
    I’ll further add that I don’t think the government really creates jobs — other than direct spending for things — a short term fix at best, and even then only if they do it right (which the last stimulus package from 2009 was a poor example).  Sometimes government spending can be an important shot in the arm, but long term job creation comes from the private sector, and that happens best when the environment is conducive to business.  Unfortunately, it takes time for the private sector to change directions, and voters are impatient, so elected officials try to make things “happen” even though their steering wheel is not well connected to the problem.

    All this stuff about bailouts is a bunch of hot air.  TARP, though widely disparaged, was actually highly successful, and the vast majority of the money has already been repaid.  Without it, we would have had a run on banks, and a nine percent unemployment rate would now be looking like a distant dream.

    1. Thanks Tom for your comment. 
      I am with you on balancing the budget with a combo of anything that can get us there. Now, I guess I was slow because I really do not understand Herman Cain’s plan at this point. I will have to read up more on that.

      I do appreciate your point about TARP. Now, I would hope to see a stimulus package that did more public works–roads, airports, speed trains. That would not pay us back right away, except it might create jobs in some areas badly hit in the short term.

      One still scary area is the housing market’s ghost inventory. Once released, we could be bleeding again. I have not heard much talk about that issue.

  10. I will admit I’m probably in the 1%, so with that disclaimer, I’m interested in seeing a balanced budget — and a realistic plan to get us there which includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  I grudgingly agree to pay more, as I don’t think we can get there from here without wealthier Americans shouldering more of the burden.  The only major rewrite of the tax code is being advocated by Herman Cain, and I see his proposal as completely unworkable.  The rest is just tinkering with the old system, which is probably the direction we should go, anyway.
    I’ll further add that I don’t think the government really creates jobs — other than direct spending for things — a short term fix at best, and even then only if they do it right (which the last stimulus package from 2009 was a poor example).  Sometimes government spending can be an important shot in the arm, but long term job creation comes from the private sector, and that happens best when the environment is conducive to business.  Unfortunately, it takes time for the private sector to change directions, and voters are impatient, so elected officials try to make things “happen” even though their steering wheel is not well connected to the problem.

    All this stuff about bailouts is a bunch of hot air.  TARP, though widely disparaged, was actually highly successful, and the vast majority of the money has already been repaid.  Without it, we would have had a run on banks, and a nine percent unemployment rate would now be looking like a distant dream.

    1. Thanks Tom for your comment. 
      I am with you on balancing the budget with a combo of anything that can get us there. Now, I guess I was slow because I really do not understand Herman Cain’s plan at this point. I will have to read up more on that.

      I do appreciate your point about TARP. Now, I would hope to see a stimulus package that did more public works–roads, airports, speed trains. That would not pay us back right away, except it might create jobs in some areas badly hit in the short term.

      One still scary area is the housing market’s ghost inventory. Once released, we could be bleeding again. I have not heard much talk about that issue.

  11. Yes!

  12. Yes!

  13. Yes!

  14. Yes!

  15. Yes!

  16. If you went by during the General Assembly, then of course you only saw empty chairs — why would the General Assembly be held on the street corner itself? it was held on the grass.

    1. Hi Jacob,
      I just reported on what I saw is all. I did say “…but I could not visibly see them.” So, to help my readers and I with better information, how many attended the General Assembly on the grass?

      And, as I am asking everyone in this conversation here, what one economic issue gets your vote?

      Thanks,

      RK

      1. There were about 25 people the one time I counted.
        What one economic issue? Get money out of politics.

        1. Thanks for letting us know the facts. That’s what an open forum is about, right?
          And money out of politics? Not sure there is much argument about that being a problem right now.

          1. Not sure how you can’t see the corrupting power big money wields in politics. It’s negative impacts have been trickling down for awhile now.  

  17. If you went by during the General Assembly, then of course you only saw empty chairs — why would the General Assembly be held on the street corner itself? it was held on the grass.

    1. Hi Jacob,
      I just reported on what I saw is all. I did say “…but I could not visibly see them.” So, to help my readers and I with better information, how many attended the General Assembly on the grass?
      And, as I am asking everyone in this conversation here, what one economic issue gets your vote?
      Thanks,
      RK

      1. There were about 25 people the one time I counted.
        What one economic issue? Get money out of politics.

        1. Thanks for letting us know the facts. That’s what an open forum is about, right?
          And money out of politics? Not sure there is much argument about that being a problem right now.

          1. Not sure how you can’t see the corrupting power big money wields in politics. It’s negative impacts have been trickling down for awhile now.  

  18. If you went by during the General Assembly, then of course you only saw empty chairs — why would the General Assembly be held on the street corner itself? it was held on the grass.

    1. Hi Jacob,
      I just reported on what I saw is all. I did say “…but I could not visibly see them.” So, to help my readers and I with better information, how many attended the General Assembly on the grass?

      And, as I am asking everyone in this conversation here, what one economic issue gets your vote?

      Thanks,

      RK

      1. There were about 25 people the one time I counted.
        What one economic issue? Get money out of politics.

        1. Thanks for letting us know the facts. That’s what an open forum is about, right?
          And money out of politics? Not sure there is much argument about that being a problem right now.

          1. Not sure how you can’t see the corrupting power big money wields in politics. It’s negative impacts have been trickling down for awhile now.  

  19. If you went by during the General Assembly, then of course you only saw empty chairs — why would the General Assembly be held on the street corner itself? it was held on the grass.

    1. Hi Jacob,
      I just reported on what I saw is all. I did say “…but I could not visibly see them.” So, to help my readers and I with better information, how many attended the General Assembly on the grass?

      And, as I am asking everyone in this conversation here, what one economic issue gets your vote?

      Thanks,

      RK

      1. There were about 25 people the one time I counted.
        What one economic issue? Get money out of politics.

        1. Thanks for letting us know the facts. That’s what an open forum is about, right?
          And money out of politics? Not sure there is much argument about that being a problem right now.

          1. Not sure how you can’t see the corrupting power big money wields in politics. It’s negative impacts have been trickling down for awhile now.  

  20. If you went by during the General Assembly, then of course you only saw empty chairs — why would the General Assembly be held on the street corner itself? it was held on the grass.

    1. Hi Jacob,
      I just reported on what I saw is all. I did say “…but I could not visibly see them.” So, to help my readers and I with better information, how many attended the General Assembly on the grass?

      And, as I am asking everyone in this conversation here, what one economic issue gets your vote?

      Thanks,

      RK

      1. There were about 25 people the one time I counted.
        What one economic issue? Get money out of politics.

        1. Thanks for letting us know the facts. That’s what an open forum is about, right?
          And money out of politics? Not sure there is much argument about that being a problem right now.

          1. Not sure how you can’t see the corrupting power big money wields in politics. It’s negative impacts have been trickling down for awhile now.  

Leave a Reply