On the floor of the House, she said the occupiers had "found the right piece of geography. They have their eyes on the right subject."
She told local TV station WTOL
"I'm glad they've got the spotlight focused on Wall Street which is the problem. The way the banking system is structured and what they just did to the American people."
Of course she's glad they're focused on Wall Street - it means they're not focused on Congress!
I've seen quite a number of comments from angry protesters bemoaning the fact that 'people' on Wall Street are not going to jail for what they've done (though they rarely can describe in any detail what, exactly, it is that they should go to jail for). But the primary reason 'all' those people aren't going to jail is because what they've done was not illegal.
You may think it is immoral and unjust, but that doesn't make it illegal.
In order for it to be illegal, there has to be a law prohibiting what they did. And Congress, who writes the laws and provides for the regulation of the banks and sets the penalties, knows that most of what the protesters object to was not illegal.
This is not to say that there are no illegalities whatsoever, but writing a sub-prime loan isn't illegal. Offering variable mortgage interest rates isn't illegal. Thinking that people entering into loans and mortgages would actually understand the obligation they were taking on isn't illegal. In fact, these things were a direct result of the laws Congress passed.
Think about it - government mandated that banks include unemployment insurance as income for the purposes of getting a mortgage. Is it really a good idea for an unemployed person to take out a mortgage for a home? Probably not. But if you're a bank and you think the borrower is an unacceptable risk because they don't have a job, too bad! The government has now forced you to count unemployment compensation as income.
So when the borrower couldn't find a job and the unemployment ran out, the bank was left with a loan it couldn't collect - and foreclosure proceedings usually ensued.
This specific scenario is a direct result of the laws Congress wrote, but the occupiers choose to blame the banks and the investors who followed those rules rather than the ones who wrote them.
So it's no wonder Rep. Kaptur is glad they're focused on something other than the source of the problem!
Interestingly, despite railing against Wall Street, OpenSecrets.org shows that she and her PAC accept campaign contributions from companies traded there, investment firms, and lobbyists who represent the financial industry - though the majority of her contributions come from labor unions and, more recently, defense contractors.
Kaptur also told WTOL that what the occupiers are doing is "healthy."
Sanitation experts would disagree.
But if Kaptur is so approving of what the occupiers are doing, she should be asked:
* why she supports the disrespect of the American Flag;
* why she supports anti-Semitism;
* why she supports defecating on a police car;
* why she supports 'killing and eating the rich';
* why she supports calls for violence;
* why she supports people who wave signs that say "if Jesus returns kill him again"'
* why she supports people who sing "f*** the USA";
* and why she is aligning herself with the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party.
Yes, this from the same representative who has an article linked on her official Congressional website that describes the TEA party movement as a "war on America." Don't believe me? Here is the screen shot:
She 'officially' supports calling tea party protesters "terrorists" and referring to the tea party as a "jihad."
Strange how she believes tea party protesters were conducting a 'war on America' but supports 'occupiers' who are aligning themselves with Nazis and Communists and are calling for the destruction of our economic system, by violent means if necessary.
Or maybe it's not so strange after all. Perhaps it's just her true colors shining through.