View Full Version : Occupy Wall Street PROTESTERS Not Letting Up - Nationwide
Are we finally starting something? The news keeps reporting on the protests that are against wallstreet greed, lack of corporations creating jobs, and no one being held accountable for the financial mess that started this " current economic climate."
They are gathering in a park near wall street and occupying it.
And it is catching on nationwide. Let us rise up.
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 7:42am
Have you studied the financial crisis? What actions should be taken against whom, and I am asking for names here, and what impact will your proposed actions have?
The protesters have sent out requests (pleas?) for everything from poster printing to medical assistance to sleeping bags to caterers. I find it fascinating that the people who would provide such goods and services are the very capitalists that the 'occupants' are protesting against. To move beyond the first round volley of discussion on that idea, yes, I will concede that the donations will likely not come directly from the capitalists, but from donors who purchased the goods and services from the capitalists.
Are we finally starting something?
Maybe. There is enough anger in the country right now that anything's possible. Still, this seems much closer to that oft quoted "pitch fork wielding mob" than most Tea Party rallies.
They can pound their drums all they like as long as my trades keep clearing.
The protesters have sent out requests (pleas?) for everything from poster printing to medical assistance to sleeping bags to caterers. I find it fascinating that the people who would provide such goods and services are the very capitalists that the 'occupants' are protesting against. To move beyond the first round volley of discussion on that idea, yes, I will concede that the donations will likely not come directly from the capitalists, but from donors who purchased the goods and services from the capitalists.
Maybe. There is enough anger in the country right now that anything's possible. Still, this seems much closer to that oft quoted "pitch fork wielding mob" than most Tea Party rallies.
are you kidding with that 2nd paragraph? i have yet to see any signs or chants that come anywhere near the venom, racism, and hatred i've seen at tea party gatherings. i'm not saying that all tea partiers are venomous hate-filled racists, but you have to admit it's a significant subset.
as far as the irony of their donations coming from the "capitalists" they are protesting against, i don't think anyone has called for an end to capitalism as we know it. occupy wall street simply wants protections against its worst excesses. does anyone really think that the wall street focus on next quarter's earnings above all else is a GOOD thing? couldn't we benefit from longer term thinking?
capitalism isn't like being pregnant -- it's not a binary switch that's either on or off. there are LOTS of regulations on the books that i doubt even the most die-hard libertarian would object to (like, say, the provision against lead paint in toys, regulations against dioxin in water, etc). we can have capitalism AND have protections against its worst excesses.
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 8:54am
i'm not saying that all tea partiers are venomous hate-filled racists, but you have to admit it's a significant subset.
Uh...., no.
Uh...., no.
even 1 in 1000 is a significant subset when you share some of the hate-filled images i've seen at tea party rallies.
even 1 in 1000 is a significant subset when you share some of the hate-filled images i've seen at tea party rallies.
This forum often reminds me of my favorite Anais Nin quote: "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."
show me one image of anything happening at occupy wall street that is anywhere near as offensive as the worst of the tea party signs?
Do you mean the signs that volunteers from "Crash The Tea Party", used at various Tea Party events a year or more ago? http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whos-behind-the-crash-the-tea-party-website/
After being exposed, the Crash The Tea Party site went away, but not before they had accomplished their goal of fooling the willing.
Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing that at last a group of people is rising up against the flagrant abuses that are occurring right under our noses. Even if it appears disorganized and nebulous from the outside. It has happened before and will again - when the "little people" get mad enough, energy rises from the bottom to make things happen. Especially when it is the younger generation who inherits the mess. My sense is that these little uprisings will swell to great proportions in the years ahead as our economy and environment declines rapidly.
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 12:24pm
I'm not a tea partier, but I agree strongly with their ideas of getting the budget under control. While I may not support the tea party 100%, I think their ideas should be part of the discussion. As for racist signs, from what I have seen in online forums and recent polls Herman Cain is the leading candidtate (e.g. 77% in the recent IL tea party poll).
But for OWS, they need signs all right, but in a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign" kind of way. Don't even know where to start with this, it's just too goofy for discussion:
The American Dream has been stolen from the world. Workers are told that they aren't allowed health care, shelter, food. Students are told that they aren't allowed jobs, and that they will be in debt for the rest of their lives, unable to declare bankruptcy. The 1% has destroyed this nation and its values through their greed. The 1% has stolen this world. We will not allow this to occur.
http://occupywallst.org/
No one has ever told me I wasn't allowed to have food and shelter. They did however mention that if I take money from someone as a loan that yes, egads, I would have to actually pay it back.
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 12:27pm
a group of people is rising up against the flagrant abuses that are occurring right under our noses.
Such as? And your plan to fix it?
They did however mention that if I take money from someone as a loan that yes, egads, I would have to actually pay it back.
What? You mean I can't get a home equity loan for 125% of my homes value, spend it on the luxury car and designer shoes and then - Gasp! - stiff the banlk for the loan when my house value falls or I get downsized from my job? And why all the up roar over govmint bailouts of big corpoations? The same companies many here probably have their retirement funds invested in. I mean is saving some of your 401K and IRA assets a bad thing? Who here has stock in Lehman Brothers? What's it worth now? can you say "Zero"? Didn't doing that keep companies and the jobs that they create intact? All seemed like agood thing for the economy to me. If it was me I would have let them all fail - invest at your own risk!I Protest with your money - if you don't want corporate greed (and I surely don't) then don't invest or buy their products.
More power to them. As I understand it the protest was initially organized by Adbusters. This is partial list of items they are hoping will be adressed.
Its web site statement said: "The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%." Saying "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired," civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer's epitaph said it her way.
Suggested ideas include: revoking corporate personhood;
reinstating Glass-Steagall, decoupling commercial from investment banks and insurers, among other provisions to curb speculation;
imposing a Tobin tax on large financial transactions;
making corporations and rich Americans pay their fair share;
demanding Obama establish an "American Democracy Reform Commission" to end "monied corruption in Washington;"
in other words, get money out of politics; creating a similar commission for banking to assure for starters too-big-to-fail banks don't exist;
They all seem like reasonable items to me, though it seems like others have joined in the protest just on general principals rather than specifics.
ApatheticNoMore
10-6-11, 2:25pm
The protesters have sent out requests (pleas?) for everything from poster printing to medical assistance to sleeping bags to caterers. I find it fascinating that the people who would provide such goods and services are the very capitalists that the 'occupants' are protesting against. To move beyond the first round volley of discussion on that idea, yes, I will concede that the donations will likely not come directly from the capitalists, but from donors who purchased the goods and services from the capitalists.
So um what? The same goods could be produced by worker cooperatives if the world was so organized. Google Mondragoon and tell me they couldn't. So like I said, so what, if they happen to be produced by capitalist at present.
More power to them. As I understand it the protest was initially organized by Adbusters. This is partial list of items they are hoping will be adressed.....
A Canadian company is organizing protests in the United States in hopes of changing our economic/governmental/societal structures?
ApatheticNoMore
10-6-11, 2:30pm
They didn't organize it, that is all spin.
So um what? The same goods could be produced by worker cooperatives if the world was so organized. Google Mondragoon and tell me they couldn't. So like I said, so what, if they happen to be produced by capitalist at present.
Don't you find it slightly ironic that the people who want to restrain, if not destroy, capitalism are asking for capitalist support for their venture?
ApatheticNoMore
10-6-11, 2:36pm
Don't you find it slightly ironic that the people who want to restrain, if not destroy, capitalism are asking for capitalist support for their venture?
No. I think anyone who exists within a system will end up having the majority of the necessities of life produced by that system. I'm sure many who protested communism used goods produced by it, oh they may not have always been the highest quality, but it was THE economic system in those countries.
They didn't organize it, that is all spin.
Somehow, someone has given them credit on their Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Nothing_Day), TV Turnoff Week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_turnoff) and Occupy Wall Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street), and is known for their "subvertisements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvertising)" that spoof popular advertisements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising).
And they seem to be seriously promoting it on their website. http://www.adbusters.org/
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 2:51pm
As I understand it the protest was initially organized by Adbusters.
I like Adbusters, but this is out of their sweet spot.
"The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."
There will always be a 1%. It's a matter of statistics, and there is nothing about having a 1% that implies greed or corruption. It's just spurious jingosim. Be specific about what corruption exists and how you want to fix it. And solutions should apply to all 100% of us.
Suggested ideas include: revoking corporate personhood;
I don't think this is really enough to get people out in the street.
reinstating Glass-Steagall, decoupling commercial from investment banks and insurers, among other provisions to curb speculation;
creating a similar commission for banking to assure for starters too-big-to-fail banks don't exist;
May be a good idea and is already under discussion in many circles. Again, I don't think this is what people are protesting.
making corporations and rich Americans pay their fair share;
By many measures they already pay more than their fair share.
demanding Obama establish an "American Democracy Reform Commission" to end "monied corruption in Washington;" in other words, get money out of politics;
Then they ought to make it "Occupy K Street". But would they lose their union backers?
I don't think the plan should be to pick on the bankers. Politics had as much to do with the financial crisis as finance. And hammering the banks is like swatting the fly on your face with a brick- you need good banking to have a good economy, if you mess up the banking system it is going to hurt everyone.
I do think some reforms are necessary, but it's not the type of thing that people would be interested in protesting on the street. The real issue is how do we as a society stay competitive in a global economy. The credit bubble masked some of our growing problems, and when it burst, as they say, "when the tide goes out you can see who is swimming naked." We should have a public conversation about how we maximize our long term competitiveness and productivity, and it may be fair to look for a way to be sure we take the harsh edges off for those who have problems competing. But have an honest conversation about it, there are not going to be free lunches. The key is fixing the competitiveness issue. If you just try to hand out benefits- jobs, healthcare, education, whatever- without regard to how that affects productivity, all you are going to end up with is Greece writ large.
Don't you find it slightly ironic that the people who want to restrain, if not destroy, capitalism are asking for capitalist support for their venture?
no more ironic than people who want to shrink government to where they can drown it in a bath tub want SS, Medicare, good roads, libraries, schools, safe food, clean water, fire protection, police protection, armies.......
Dharma Bum
10-6-11, 7:23pm
Best, er, Ziggy, did you come visit us in NY this week?
Sign I saw at OWS: WEED NOT GREED
Maxamillion
10-6-11, 7:27pm
Democracy for everyone, not just the 1%. I'm so glad to see Americans waking up and doing something, and exercising their first amendment rights.
Best, er, Ziggy, did you come visit us in NY this week?
Sign I saw at OWS: WEED NOT GREED
I read where that could be the largest untapped voting bloc (marijuana smokers) in the US - 100 million. I'm hoping to attend Occupy Austin tomorrow - too lazy to fight the Texas/OU traffic today.
Peace
Since the companies that are at the heart of the complaints are transnationals, as is capital, that Adbusters is Canadian is irrelevant. Wall Street has been the center of international finance for some generations.
Best sign I saw: "Tear down this Wall Street"
The protesters have sent out requests (pleas?) for everything from poster printing to medical assistance to sleeping bags to caterers. I find it fascinating that the people who would provide such goods and services are the very capitalists that the 'occupants' are protesting against. To move beyond the first round volley of discussion on that idea, yes, I will concede that the donations will likely not come directly from the capitalists, but from donors who purchased the goods and services from the capitalists.
My impression is that they're not necessarily protesting capitalism in total (at least not all of them, since it's a large group of individuals, each with their own opinions and ideas), but rather the non-capitalistic aspect of our capitalism where the too big to fail banks and wall street have been bailed out, saving them from that unfortunate part of capitalism called bankruptcy and failure. Hence the 'we're the 99%' phrase. Although in actuality it could/should be "we're the 99.9%"
no more ironic than people who want to shrink government to where they can drown it in a bath tub want SS, Medicare, good roads, libraries, schools, safe food, clean water, fire protection, police protection, armies.......
This is interesting - in Topeka, KA apparently if you commit domestic battery, or any other misdemeanor you won't be charged - since they don't have the funds to. "Topeka police Capt. Brian Desch said Wednesday that 18 arrests had been made in Topeka in connection with misdemeanor domestic battery since Sept. 8, but all of those taken into custody were released from the Shawnee County Jail after charges weren’t filed." It looks like the county tried to drop the job on the city after budget cuts and the city just doesn't have the money for it. Smaller government at work. Seriously, it must be terrifying for those knowing their attackers will just be released.
http://cjonline.com/news/2011-10-06/domestic-battery-state-now-leader-voices-outrage#.To5a-EAjjxE
ApatheticNoMore
10-7-11, 12:07am
My impression is that they're not necessarily protesting capitalism in total (at least not all of them, since it's a large group of individuals, each with their own opinions and ideas), but rather the non-capitalistic aspect of our capitalism where the too big to fail banks and wall street have been bailed out, saving them from that unfortunate part of capitalism called bankruptcy and failure
Oh I definitely think there's an element of that. Crony capitalism is certainly a rigged game, and it has been widespread ever since the economic crisis.
I'm finding occupy wall street has a lot more mainstream appeal than frankly I expected, but that's just the impression I get when I hear people talk about it locally. I mean not just appealing to the people where I'd go: DUH, but to people I wouldn't have pegged ....
I read where that could be the largest untapped voting bloc (marijuana smokers) in the US - 100 million.
Short of a referendum legalizing pot, how do you get that bloc to the polls? Doritos? :D
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/we-are-the-99-percent-creators
An interesting article interviewing the person who coined the phrase We Are the 99 percent.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/we-are-the-99-percent-creators
An interesting article interviewing the person who coined the phrase We Are the 99 percent.
Actually, they co-opted the phrase.
Back in 1947, the American Motorcycle Association, while describing "outlaw bikers", referred to the 99% of motorcycle riders who were law-abiding citizens and the 1% who were not. The Hells Angels then adopted the phrase "1 percenter" to describe themselves and "99 percenter" for the rest of society.
You know, I've been following this since before it hit mainstream news. Initially, whether from some organization efforts by Adbusters or not, there seemed to be some specifics on a wish, suggestion, or demand list. As other groups have joined in it really seems to have become a directionless free-for-all. The most I am getting out of it is, stop corporate greed, we want jobs, I'm tired of the 99%/1%. At least that is what is coming through in the media.
I'm not seeing one unified actionable concrete demand or suggestion. It's really unfortunate, with all the attention it's getting, as it seems like a wasted effort that had the potential to be productive. In my old working days a similar thing would have been described as a b**ch session.
I'm not seeing one unified actionable concrete demand or suggestion. It's really unfortunate, with all the attention it's getting, as it seems like a wasted effort that had the potential to be productive. In my old working days a similar thing would have been described as a b**ch session.
So, you're saying it's kind of like our folks in Washington?
loosechickens
10-7-11, 3:49pm
Interesting piece this morning on CNN regarding the "Perfect Storm" conditions for mass disapproval of Wall Street.......which means that this COULD catch on with a much larger percentage of folks than you think. There is really a LOT of common cause in the grievances expressed by everyone from the Tea Party to unions to the unemployed, and youth, and Wall Street fat cats are certainly a place to look for some of the excesses, greed and powermongering that has been happening to depress the opportunities and lives of the 99% of us in this country, while shoveling hundreds of billions of the wealth created by that 99% into their bottomless pockets.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/07/opinion/owens-wall-street-disapproval/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
So, you're saying it's kind of like our folks in Washington?
Well, over time Washington seems to have done a few things to encourage the protest? Plus they get pay and benefits.
http://www.rouchnaturephotos.com/Personal/Vermont-Sugar-Season/i-PvxL9ZB/0/M/nytimestaxesgraph-M.gif (http://www.rouchnaturephotos.com/Personal/Vermont-Sugar-Season/16383251_wnDbKV#1486912040_PvxL9ZB-A-LB)
Dharma Bum
10-7-11, 5:53pm
Well, over time Washington seems to have done a few things to encourage the protest?
Apparently they failed to educate everyone about how taxes work so gullible people still regurgitate misleading charts.
ApatheticNoMore
10-7-11, 6:33pm
You know, I've been following this since before it hit mainstream news. Initially, whether from some organization efforts by Adbusters or not, there seemed to be some specifics on a wish, suggestion, or demand list. As other groups have joined in it really seems to have become a directionless free-for-all.
I'm getting that impression too. That it is becoming more directionless. It lacked concrete proposals before, but I think it at least had a general thrust which I think was: enough with the absolutely incestuous relationship of government with industry (and yes I see no way to do that with so much money in politics).
It's really unfortunate, with all the attention it's getting, as it seems like a wasted effort that had the potential to be productive. In my old working days a similar thing would have been described as a b**ch session.
Yea I really don't see it that way, because a solution is not arrived at today, it's not productive. I mean I know we expect instant gratification and all but ... I think the potential (potential not certainty) of many useful movements spinning off of this initial movement exists.
Apparently they failed to educate everyone about how taxes work so gullible people still regurgitate misleading charts.
Perhaps, for my education, you could point out how the chart is misleading. It's my impression that the only misleading element is the additional tax exemptions and benefits the wealthy may enjoy through their investments and savy tax advisors? I can easily be swayed the other direction with good reasoning.
Apparently they failed to educate everyone about how taxes work so gullible people still regurgitate misleading charts.
Do you have a less misleading one to regurgitate?
Yes, for one, it omits FICA and Medicare taxes -- see the key. Since most of those top out for the wealthy, the lower levels should be higher. And it takes no account of the various loopholes available to certain types of businesses and corporations -- usually very large and international and in favored industries like oil and gas.
The stated "marginal rates" are also highly misleading, because they generally only apply to basic income earners and not to people who can diversify and shield it.
Another good article by Professor Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
John Cassidy of the New Yorker wrote down all the signs he saw - it's quite a list!
THE NEW YORKER ONLINE ONLY
RATIONAL IRRATIONALITY
Posted by John Cassidy
“APATHY IS FOR ASSHOLES”
“TAX WALL STREET LEECHES”
“They Got a Bailout. We Got Sold Out.”
“**** GOOGLE”
“TURN WALL STREET INTO TAHRIR SQUARE”
“Something has gone wrong in America. We will not be silent”
“Hedge Funds Win When Pensioners Lose”
“STOP ROBBING THE MIDDLE CLASS TO PAY THE RICH”
“It’s my money and I need it now!”
“TAX THE RICH A LOT!”
“RAGING GRANNIES W/THEIR DAUGHTERS”
“WALL STREET WHITE MEN YOU NO LONGER RUN THE UNIVERSE”
“ARREST THE KOCH BROTHERS”
“HEY BANKERS! YOU BREAK IT, YOU PAY FOR IT”
“NO BONUSES FOR THE BAILED OUT”
“QUICK! SELL EVERYTHING AND INVEST IN PEPPER SPRAY’
“BUY STOCKS NOT POLITICIANS”
“GREED IS AN ADDICTION”
“EAT THE RICH”
“I AM HERE TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY”
“AMERICAN NURSES SUPPORT OCCUPY WALL STREET”
“FARMERS FOR CLEAN FOOD. NO GMO”
“ENOUGH IT ENOUGH”
“BAN FRACKING NOW”
“LONG LIVE THE SPIRIT OF MADISON”
“STOP THE CUNY TUITION HIKES”
“JP MORGAN IS A KLEPTOMANIAC”
“STOP REWARDING FAILURE. GOLDEN SHOWERS NOT GOLDEN PARACHUTES”
“ERIC CANTOR: AMERICA’S CANCER”
“THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE”
“WHAT’S IN YOUR WALLET?”
“DEVELOP YOUR EMPATHY’
“SUPPORT OUR KIDS”
“FED UP? WANT CHANGE? TAKE ACTION NOW”
“NOT SO FAST YOU GREEDY BASTARDS”
“WHERE ARE MY TAX BREAKS?”
“Capitalism is not healthy for children and other living things”
“OPEN YOUR EYES. THIS IS THE REVOLUTION!”
“I’m all about that 99%. BUTT!!”
“OBAMA = BUSH”
“I’M YOUNG EDUCATED AND ANGRY’
“Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.”
“CRIME PAYS IN THE USA, ON WALL STREET”
“REGULATE MARKETS, FREE PEOPLE.’
“LISTEN TO THE WARRENS”
“MARX WAS RIGHT”
“BILLIONAIRES YOUR TIME IS UP”
“IMPEACH OBAMA. PROTECTOR OF WALL STREET PARASITE CRIMINALS”
“ANOTHER TRUST FUND BABY FOR THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH”
“Tax and regulation irrational exuberance”
“DON’T MACE ME BRO. MY MOM IS HERE”
“Bankers are Cylons”
“This is SO not over”
“MAKE LOVE”
“OCCUPY EVERYTHING”
“ROBIN HOOD WAS RIGHT”
“I’M A BORN-AGAIN AMERICAN”
“JP MORGAN BOUGHT THE NYPD”
“I AGREE”
“JOIN US SAVE OUR REPUBLIC”
“PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS”
“WAKE UP”
“IMMIGRANTS ARE THE 99%”
“One Nation Under Greed”
“DECOLONIZE WALL STREET’
“WE ARE HERE TO PROTECT THE FUTURE”
“END SUBSIDIES TO BIG AGRICULTURE”
“I’m self-employed and can’t afford healthcare. I am the 99%”
“JAIL THE BANKERS”
“DREAM BIG!”
“They bought off Washington and gave us the TAB”
“I’m just another homeless hippie living off my parents’ trust fund. Ignore me no more.”
“EXPROPRIATE THE EXPROPRIATORS’
“LET THEM EAT BIG MACS”
“We Know Who Our Enemies Are”
“I Participate. You Participate. He Participates. We Participate. THEY PROFIT”
“LESS KOCH MORE ****”
“GOLDMAN SUCKS”
“READ MY LIPS: TAX THE RICH”
“WELCOME BACK TO THE FIGHT. THIS TIME I KNOW OUR SIDE WILL WIN.”
“GUILTY BANKERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL”
“END THE FED”
“GIVE MY PROFESSOR HEALTH INSURANCE”
“WALL STREET BANK ROBBERS LOOT THE PUBLIC”
“JESUS WAS THE 99%”
“DON’T ARREST PROTESTORS”
“Our politicians are the priesthood of capitalism”
“BOEHNER & CANTOR: GREEDY BANKSTERS”
“MY KIDS AREN’T PAYING FOR YOUR BONUS”
“The Obama we thought we had elected would be here with us, not ignoring us.”
“DOCTORS FOR THE 99%”
“END CORPORATE FACISM”
“GENTLEMEN AGAINST GREED”
“YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME”
“GREED IS BAD”
“I’m Mad as Hell”
“PROTECT THE COMMONS”
“Hands off Social Security”
“KICK ‘M IN THE JUNK BONDS”
“SAVE A HORSE. RIDE A BANKER”
“WOMEN UNITED AGAINST REPUBLICAN/TEA PARTY SCUM”
“THE MIDDLE CLASS IS TOO BIG TO FAIL”
“DE-PRIVATIZE DEMOCRACY”
“CART WHEELS FOR JUSTICE”
“Corporations are people too?”
“CITIBANK CRIMINALS”
“WE MARCH FOR HOPE NOT HATE”
“ARE WE GOING TO LET A BUNCH OF GREEDY SELFISH FOOLS DO IN THE WHOLE PLANET?”
“TEAR DOWN THIS WALL STREET”
“THE MONETARY SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM”
“Give Power Back to the People”
“THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED. BUT IT WILL BE LIVESTREAMED, TWEETED, YOUTUBED, AND FACEBOOKED”
“WE ARE THE 99%”
“HEY BANKS. STOP USING THE $s I DEPOSIT TO SCREW MY NEIGHBOR”
“WISE OWLS SEEK ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR ALL”
“PUPPETEERS BEFORE PROFIT”
“OBAMA. TIME TO WALK THE WALK”
“MONEY FOR SCHOOLS NOT WAR”
“Where is George Bailey when you need him? We’re done with Pottersville.”
“WEED NOT GREED”
“WORKING CLASS AND PISSED OFF”
“PARADIGM SHIFT NOW”
“FORECLOSE BLANKFEIN”
“I OWE SALLIE MAE $25,123.91”
“DROP COPS NOT BOMBS”
“LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE”
“I AM NOT PATRIARCHY’S BITCH”
“Wall Stree: ‘The love of money is the root of all evil.’ Jesus”
“TAKE THIS TEA PARTY”
“WITHOUT MONEY WE’D ALL BE RICH”
“CORPORATIONS ARE PSYCHOPATHS. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE”
“The free market keeps giving me the invisible finger”
“POWER TO THE PEACEFUL”
“ ‘The most important political office is that of private citizen,’ Louis Brandeis”
“BUFFET’S SECRETARY”
“ARAB SPRING, WALL STREET FALL’
“Both parties are beholden to corporate $$. I want my voice back.”
“STANDING UP FOR THE CHANGE WE VOTED FOR”
“JOIN THE REVOLUTION”
“SEX WORKERS AGAINST CAPITALISM”
“FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TAX TODAY”
“USA IS NOT FOR SALE”
“WARREN BUFFET IS SMARTER THAN YOU”
“BILLIONS FOR BANKERS, CUTBACKS FOR WORKERS. HELL NO!”
“WALL STREET NEEDS AN ENEMA. FULL OF CRAP!”
“JUILLIARD STUDENTS SUPPORT OCCUPY WALL STREET”
“WALL STREET HAS THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION”
“THIS IS THE MOST HOPEFUL I HAVE FELT IN A LONG TIME”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/10/signs-of-the-times.html#ixzz1a9vqkBWL
When a variety of media outlets have questioned some protestors on live t.v., asking them "Why are you here and what are you protesting?" -Responses included:
I don't know..seems like the place to be.
Dude..where's my car?
I'm raging man.
This is a silly effort on behalf of the far left to legitimize this "protest". Dems think they can come up with their own sort of tea party. Remember the nasty mess left in the aftermath of Woodstock? These people aren't going to clean up after themselves. They need to go home shower, put on some fresh tye-dye and hemp garments and go find a job.
right. find a job.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm -- no real change in unemployment rate in Sept.
so looks like there's lots of places for 14 Million people counted in that 9.1% to find jobs.
likewise, it might be valuable to note that the rate is based on people who are "in the system" of unemployment -- getting benefits, looking for jobs, or giving up having looked for jobs, or taking part time jobs because that's all that's available to them (or their jobs being cut to part time for economic reasons on the part of the company) -- and not the actual number of unemployed people in the US.
that actual number is higher, looking at the employment-population ratio which takes into account all working-age adults who are not working. Of course, some adults are not working out of choice (eg, stay at home moms), but that ratio has changed dramatically in the past few years -- as an example from the government's own reports. In 2005, that ratio was 78.5%, but today it is at 58.3%. This can't be due to the fact that 20.2% more moms are choosing to stay at home, or that many more are disabled, or what have you since 2005.
it is likely due to the fact that those jobs don't exist, and what jobs do exist are part time, low paying jobs.
not that i'm too proud to take such a job -- i would. but there aren't enough for 14 million people, let alone the remaining uncounted millions.
My 22 year old recent college grad daughter found a job, not in her field, low-paying but she knows it is better to be productive and moving forward than sleeping in the street, chanting, hollering and making mess for the rest of us.
While she was looking for a job, she did odd jobs and pinched every penny.
She also volunteered because she knows it is better to be productive and giving back than sitting around whining and complaining.
kenh- thanks the poster list - I loved reading down to find the ones I identified with.
It's going to be easy for this movement to get dismissed as Flower Power 2 or whatever, but there are some good little nuggets in there though. I'd take the kids into the city today and march with them if there was no chance of us getting hurt. I am so afraid that this may turn ugly -- at some point it seems the city will have to address the congestion, or some super kook will take advantage of the situation.
If somehow you could boil it all down to the main point that people do not want to be infringed upon or 'played' by either Big Gov OR Big Corp - we just want to live our lives in relative peace and be happy --- thus uniting TeaParty and Occupiers --- now there's a movement for the 1% and their gov puppets to fear!
Greed in a Global Economy is proving to be pretty anti-American.
Greed in a Global Economy is proving to be pretty anti-American.
Protesting against “greed” seems almost comically futile. You might as well demand an end to sloth or envy. Human nature being what it is, the likeliest alternative to crony capitalism is crony socialism; and we already have an established political party that has enjoyed some measure of success working toward that end.
mtnlaurel
10-8-11, 10:57am
Protesting against “greed” seems almost comically futile. You might as well demand an end to sloth or envy. Human nature being what it is, the likeliest alternative to crony capitalism is crony socialism; and we already have an established political party that has enjoyed some measure of success working toward that end.
I know I'm sure very futile - but it doesn't make that statement any less true.
The question remains what is to be DONE to right the ship?
I'm not anti-Capitalist - but what's required for it to succeed is that everyone is getting a little 'something, something' from it.
At least if everyone believes that they have a shot at making it, whatever that is, it can, sort of, work.
It's very dangerous for such a large # of people in a society to feel so angry and disenfranchised (far right included).
When the enfranchised are starting to feel disenfranchised...... "Houston we have a problem"
Interesting piece this morning on CNN regarding the "Perfect Storm" conditions for mass disapproval of Wall Street.......which means that this COULD catch on with a much larger percentage of folks than you think. There is really a LOT of common cause in the grievances expressed by everyone from the Tea Party to unions to the unemployed, and youth, and Wall Street fat cats are certainly a place to look for some of the excesses, greed and powermongering that has been happening to depress the opportunities and lives of the 99% of us in this country, while shoveling hundreds of billions of the wealth created by that 99% into their bottomless pockets.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/07/opinion/owens-wall-street-disapproval/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
You're right, and I'm sure both the democratic and republican party leaders see it as well, and will do everything in their power to trot out the same tired divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage to make sure that no cross-party unity happens based on class issues like this. Because if it does all the crony politicians in our crony capitalist society will get tossed out on their asses.
I know I'm sure very futile - but it doesn't make that statement any less true.
The question remains what is to be DONE to right the ship?
I'm not anti-Capitalist - but what's required for it to succeed is that everyone is getting a little 'something, something' from it.
At least if everyone believes that they have a shot at making it, whatever that is, it can, sort of, work.
It's very dangerous for such a large # of people in a society to feel so angry and disenfranchised (far right included).
When the enfranchised are starting to feel disenfranchised...... "Houston we have a problem"
If by “right the ship” you mean how can we return, both individually and collectively, to living above our means, I think the answer is “we can’t”. We can try going after “millionaires and billionaires” to pick up a larger share of our collective tab through the tax code or other redistributionist schemes, but we will eventually reach the limit of what can be extracted by capital flight. We can try getting future generations to cover our current expenses by borrowing, or devaluing our currency, but we will ultimately bump up against the limits on that end as well. As the fellow said, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” only works if you will be earning something between now and Tuesday.
I don’t think government can solve our problems through some kind of administrative wizardry. We seem to have exhausted the limits of the available monetary and Keynesian tools, punishing savers and rewarding borrowers in the process. We have also hindered the ability of the real economy, where the real jobs are created, to grow. In that way, I think this current crop of anarchists demanding big government have little sense of the reality of the situation.
At base, the problem is more moral than technical or political. We, both as individuals and as a society, have valued current consumption over future investment, placing our own comfort over our children’s security. In that sense, we have been complicit with Wall Street in creating the current situation. I believe seeking scapegoats in “the one percent” rather than recognizing some kind of personal responsibility is a form of moral cowardice that results in us disenfranchising ourselves. The process of coming to that realization is going to be painful indeed.
Redistribution schemes, I love the way right wingers have bought into this idea to say it is class warfare. Who has benefited the most from our form of capitalism? It is sure not the poor or even the lower middle class. It is the wealthy or as they say the top 1%. They have also received the largest tax reductions in the last 10 years. They also seem to be doing OK. I just read the other day where a football team owner in the 1% group just bought a new toy. A yacht that cost over 200 million dollars.
The wealthy benefit the most from capitalism in the US so they should pay their far share.
Redistribution schemes, I love the way right wingers have bought into this idea to say it is class warfare. Who has benefited the most from our form of capitalism? It is sure not the poor or even the lower middle class. It is the wealthy or as they say the top 1%. They have also received the largest tax reductions in the last 10 years. They also seem to be doing OK. I just read the other day where a football team owner in the 1% group just bought a new toy. A yacht that cost over 200 million dollars.
The wealthy benefit the most from capitalism in the US so they should pay their far share.
It is class warfare.
In your example, how many people were employed in the manufacture of that $200M boat? How many suppliers provided product, how much labor, how much design? Do you think a $200M boat requires a crew? How many people will be employed just to maintain it?
Why would you want to keep someone from making a purchase like that? What do you have against those people who would be hurt by your desire to punish a rich person?
Some years ago our government, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to penalize the rich by implementing luxury taxes on items like this. The result was that whole industries were impacted as the rich stopped purchasing those items. Somehow, the government saw the error of it's ways and did away with the luxury tax, allowing those industries to begin to recover.
Why don't we learn from our previous mistakes?
And those luxury taxes were used to do what? Build roads, fund national defense, develop and protect public lands, supplement education, and pay various government workers and projects. All of which provide employment and many of which allow business to thrive and build wealth.
No doutb there is some frivolous spending in government, but probably no less than building parts for luxury boats.
And those luxury taxes were used to do what? Build roads, fund national defense, develop and protect public lands, and pay various government workers and projects. All of which provide employment. No doutb there is some frivolous spending in government, but probably no less that building parts for luxury boats.
No, actually those luxury taxes brought in next to nothing, or at least no where near the amounts government expected. The net result was negative, which eventually resulted in the tax's repeal.
And who's to say what is frivolous and what is not?
ApatheticNoMore
10-8-11, 2:12pm
These people aren't going to clean up after themselves.
All evidence is that they are cleaning up after themselves as in keeping the park clean etc..
All evidence is that they are cleaning up after themselves as in keeping the park clean etc..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html
Alan it was a used Yacht and it did not provide any US jobs. It was built in Italy!!!! I was wrong on the price it was only 70 million dollars. Class warfare what a bunch of talking head garbage. Remember the French Revolution a few of the upper class got their heads cut off.
Alan it was a used Yacht and it did not provide any US jobs. It was built in Italy!!!! I was wrong on the price it was only 70 million dollars. Class warfare what a bunch of talking head garbage. Remember the French Revolution a few of the upper class got their heads cut off.
Will it be maintained and staffed in the United States?
That reminds me, do you remember what happened when the state of Massachusetts implemented a yacht tax in order to force the rich to pay more and more taxes, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry docked his yacht in Rhode Island. Even good liberals try to keep as much of their wives money as they can. It's human nature.
You may also recall that during the French Revolution a few of the upper class did indeed get their heads cut off, and then some of the original anarchists who started the revolution got their's cut off as well. Popular rebellions against the rich and powerful are messy affairs since once you start, it's hard to determine when to stop.
From CBSNewYork:
The cramped and noisy protesters in Zuccotti Park does not appear to be going anywhere soon. To date, the occupation has cost the city an extra $2 million in police overtime alone.
The owners of the private park, Brookfield Office Properties, cannot simply eject the demonstrators because the charter for the park allows 24-hour public access. But the owners never counted on this and appear to be getting fed up.
In a statement they said “because the protestors refuse to cooperate…the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
If cost is the main concern, how much did the Tea Party's 9/12/2009 protest march in Washington D.C. cost?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-protesters-march-washington/story?id=8557120
How much police overtime costs are there during the annual January anti-abortion protests in front of the U.S.Supreme Court? Who really cares?
Democracy is messy. Protesting may cause inconvenience. But you can't claim to value American's freedom of speech and then say it's only okay if you agree with how protestors are dressed, their hairstyle, their tone of voice, and their perceived income.
I don't agree with the Tea Party, but I would never, ever, disagree with their right to demonstrate on Wall Street as long and loud as they wanted, tri-corner hats and all.
I find it amazing when anyone criticizes someone for protesting anything. For someone to take the time, the effort, to go to a public gathering place and simply express their feelings is what I think that a democracy is all about?
I went to Vietnam (not by choice) and then returned to join the protests against that stupid war. I saw the same outrage with the Iraq war which was poo-poo'ed off as unpatriotic by the same people that seem to believe that the only way to influence change is the ballot box. BTW - how's that working out for ya?
Unless someone can stop this takeover by corporate America and their influence by way of money then our nation is ripe for some very ugly times ahead. When wealth distribution gets this out-of-whack then strange things are subject to happen.
Peace
Oh for heaven's sake 24 hours access to the public, that's ridiculous. I certainly DO think they can move the group out for the specific purpose to clean up a public health hazard.
My 22 year old recent college grad daughter found a job, not in her field, low-paying but she knows it is better to be productive and moving forward than sleeping in the street, chanting, hollering and making mess for the rest of us.
Foremost, I don't get why you think protest is an unproductive mess that "the rest of us" are cleaning up. I look it as they are trying to clean up the apathetic mess that you seem to be rather complacent about.
Secondarily, About 50 of my friends are participating in the NYC protests, and about 35 or 40 more are involved in protests throughout the country. All of them have jobs, many of them in their fields or small business owners, and others with part time work (in their fields or related), and one voluntarily cut her job in 1/3 (and her pay) so that two of her fellow employees could retain employment.
So, they are clearly "being productive and moving forward" while also protesting corporate greed and it's hold on our government.
While she was looking for a job, she did odd jobs and pinched every penny. She also volunteered because she knows it is better to be productive and giving back than sitting around whining and complaining.
Yes, all of my friends who are unemployed or underemployed do this too. Many of them are doing time banking to get essential needs met (eg, doing odd jobs in exchange for time/odd jobs from other people who are donating time/odd jobs -- it's a barter system), and doing whatever work they can cobble together (from etsy styled businesses to yard work to whatever they can do or find for cash), as well as pinching every penny. Likewise, nearly everyone I know -- employed or unemployed right now -- volunteers at least one hour a week to a charitable cause in their area. Most of them it's far more than one hour per week.
The only one "sitting around and complaining" really is you. You are complaining about people protesting something that they feel is wrong and unjust (and quite frankly, they are right), and characterizing them as lazy and careless.
Instead, you might want to know what the demographic actually is. If I were in the US, I would be there. As it is, I simply have an american flag, a sign supporting OWS, and a description of why we support it underneath, hanging in our front window.
I work over 60 hours a week running my own profitable business, raise my 3 yr old child without government aid (from here or in the US) with my partner with no day care or nanny, and I also volunteer with a local organization helping local migrant mothers (refugee and other immigrants) find resources and support in their family needs. I mostly visit with different mothers at a meeting once a week -- where we practice english, talk about child rearing practices and approaches (as well as legal implications in some cases -- eg, there are anti-smacking laws here), and also how to access both government and NGO services for them. THey also have 24-7 email and phone support from us.
So, the next time you call us "backward looking complainers who leave a mess for the rest of us" perhaps take a look at the four fingers pointing back at yourself, rather than the one you are pointing at me.
so the question is: Do the protestors know why they are there? What are they protesting? All forms of protest are not wrong - however, this pointless, squalid mess is. I'm complaining about Obama attempting to legitimize this and again - these protestors are being USED by the left, they are accomplishing nothing.
What do they want? Handouts? Political change? What? The endeavor is pointless and silly.
The tea party has become a force in politics...united in message. I don't see that happening here.
Catwoman: i wrote about it in the MEDIA section of what the point is for MANY of these protestors.
What is being reported is that there is a rag-tag bunch of complainers who have no point.
But the reality -- is what is present in the NYT article (which is linked earlier in the thread) and also what I wrote. Now, I grant you, there are people who are ignorant, who don't know why they are there, BUT there are a lot of people in the movement who are ORGANIZED and do have ideas, even if they are non-specific.
The tea party was also a mess for many months, and in my opinion is still quite incoherent, and this has only been going on for a few weeks. So give it time to coalesce, as more and more people are stepping up, and more people "get" what is going on.
And here's an example of a grown up politician actually telling you what it is about: Alan Grayson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcsfT0).
People are starting to listen, and something IS starting to coalesce.
And don't buy it, Catwoman, the tea party IS being used by the republican party. It was it's own, interesting movement, until it got purchased.
I'm complaining about Obama attempting to legitimize this
I'm thinking that is your problem? What does Obama have to do with this other than the fact that he represents change from the status quo?
I would much prefer cleaning up after those nasty hippies than clean up after the financial district.
Peace
also, i'm not sure what "squalor" people are talking about. The whole thing is very organized in the park. Here are pictures from the park in question, and I don't see squalor. I see organized sleeping areas, areas where signs are being made (out of recycled cardboard), and where that cardboard is being collected. I also see a recycling center for bottles and such.
but, every time i type in "squalor and occupy wall st" i dont' find any pictures -- just media descriptions of the conditions being that -- and instead, when i look at pictures taken by the protestors themselves, the whole thing seems organized.
here (http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/09/25/occupywallstreet-zuccotti-park-squaters-ignore-owners-notice-to-gtfo-photos/) is a blog that has some nice ones. Here (http://occupywallst.org/about/) is the unofficial, de facto web site that has become a helpful tool and rallying site regarding the movement. there is a forum, where people put in their ideas for a "list of demands" so that the organization can coalesce.
It's already a legitimate movement, and was from the beginning. It doesn't need Obama to be legitimate.
Sorry, once you invoke Alan Grayson, all rationality goes out the window, credibility vanishes and it basically hurts your side. The guy is toxic.
oh, and it was started, btw, by a canadian magazine. Adbusters (http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters) put out the call, and people responded. Adbusters is an international social activist magazine.
Once there, a planning group was formed, and occupy wall st went national. One of my friends attended during her lunch break on Day one, and has attended before and after work ever since. others helped organize in other towns, and are now actively part of the movement.
I don't really think this has anything to do with Obama, and I have no problem if Obama gets behind it. I have no problem if the TEa Party gets behind it. I have no problem if Fox news gets behind it. So long as everyone holds to the vision -- which at it's core is social justice.
It's coming together. I'm proud to support it.
Really, an unsubstantiated claim?
The only thing a google search kicked up was 1. how Grayson repeatedly points out corporate and government bail outs fraud and corruption; 2. an anderson cooper spot on how one of his campaign ads was misrespresenting some facts about his opponent, and in the same segment how a republican in the elections was doing the same thing (i thought this was common knowledge/practice -- perhaps i'm too cynical?).
So, you are going to continue to just lob complaints without actually finding evidence or supporting your side?
I guess the old addage is true "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!"
You are right. I'm just an ignorant, dirty, good-for-nothing hippie who wants to create a mess for you to clean up and i quote "toxic" politicians (unlike tea party politicians who honestly believe that the constitution sets up a theocracy -- as if that's not "toxic" to americans.)
Likewise, what it is about has already been posted NYT op-ed Confronting the Malefactors (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), OccupyWallSt (http://www.occupywallst.org) unofficial, and Adbusters (http://www.adbusters.com) (who started the call before it was what it is now). Grayson's statement is simply a statement that *rehashes* what has already been said, but you STILL seem to think that it's a pointless, childish, and needless movement.
And, if you want a Tea Party person's perspective, here (http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/) is a letter from a self-proclaimed member of the original tea-party movement, and how it got completely screwed over by the media and republican party.
And here, for good measure, my friend's efforts in West Papua (http://westpapuamedia.info/) -- where he dedicates his work, time, and effort to free people from a tyrannical government. You know, what we good for nothing, dirty hippies like to do in our spare time.
Just so you know that we not so boring and myopic as to think that there aren't other parts in the world.
right, after reading that letter again, perhaps i don't want obama or anyone to 'get behind it' -- i want the movement to take root and hold it's course, and not get undone by corporate interests. how about that? LOL
Catwoman - Seriously, look at the Alan Grayson link Zoebird put up - whether or not he in and of himself is toxic, I do not know, but he very succinctly puts forth the WHY Of OWS --- and why I support OWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcsfT0
And Kenh on page 5 of this thread put up umpteen individual reasons behind OWS -- I'm not sure how much traction 'Sex Workers Against Capitalism' is getting
Now - what in the world is to be done about it - I haven't the slightest clue. I bet there are solutions on all sides of the coin, if we'd open up our minds, put our thinking caps on and look for answers.
But we must stop throttling each other and get our leaders to sit down (stop being pansies walking away from negotiations) and get to work solving it. Like today, not Jan 2013.
I don't think pat answers like Tax the Rich, Lower Taxes, in and of themselves are going to solve it - the problem is like a seven layer dip of dog dung.
LDAHL asked what I thought 'righting the ship' meant - I think people that have gone to the trouble to do 'all the right things' should have a fair shake at meaningful employment and decent standard of living for a country of our overall wealth. And those that are just down on their luck shouldn't go to bed hungry or live in a war zone - And those that make crappy choices, well at least we'll try to give your kids a quality education, food at their school and some sense of hope.
LDAHL - from your posts in reaction to mine - in the first one you seemed to chide me for bringing up the moral aspect of 'greed' - then in your second entry, if I read it correctly, you see individual morality vs. policy as the solution. To get a nation of Big Mac eaters to see their own personal responsibility in all matters seems equally as futile.
So wouldn't it stand to reason that there is something in between getting greedy people to be less greedy and getting the masses to all take responsibility for themselves that could work? --
The gov. is there to represent the people and help create an atmosphere for a beneficial economy - if gov really, truly can't affect some positive change in this situation, then we really should consider dismantling it and retreat to our well stocked bunkers.
I am kind of a Santelli Teapartier myself until the Moral Majority latched on and Palin totally ruined that whole gig for me.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1039849853
At least those of us on this board stand at least half a chance in this new mean, cruel world - we all know how to cook a pot of beans and are seekers
I loved the Greyson talk. Also +1 for Mtnlaurel. Good discussion.
also, we have to recognize something. our gen and the gen just behind us, we do have trickster energy. it's a vibrant kind of playfulness, where we kinda jab at ourselves and use humor (usually self-depricating or ironic) to try to get our point across.
it's actually beneficial, even if it confuses people. the idea is to recognize that even amidst our serious claims and taking ourselves and our concerns seriously, we can still have a sense of humor about it, and about ourselves. We use it to cut pressure for ourselves, and it is MUCH nicer than dealing with the dark joker (see Heath Ledger's brilliant turn as the beautifully written and directed version of the dark joker archetype Nolan's The Dark Knight).
Trust me, if our joker energy goes Dark Joker on you, Heath Ledger isn't the only one of us capable of channeling that.
and If you can't recognize Trickster energy (or archetypes) in some of those signs or responses (and that those sound bytes would be chosen to keep the movement from being seen as legitimate), then time to read some campbell and brush up.
because we are getting old enough to come into power, and we're going to do it whether you like it or not. And we'll either do it Fun Trickster or Dark Trickster.
And I think we would all prefer Fun Trickster.
More good works from the Occupy Wall St. people:
The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on the Mall was abruptly closed Saturday afternoon after a “large group of protesters” tried to push past security guards and enter the museum, Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said.
At least one demonstrator was pepper-sprayed by a museum guard in the confrontation, St. Thomas said. Several witnesses said that more than a dozen people were affected by the spray.
The museum was closed at about 3:15 p.m., St. Thomas said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2
More good works from the Occupy Wall St. people:
The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on the Mall was abruptly closed Saturday afternoon after a “large group of protesters” tried to push past security guards and enter the museum, Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said.
At least one demonstrator was pepper-sprayed by a museum guard in the confrontation, St. Thomas said. Several witnesses said that more than a dozen people were affected by the spray.
The museum was closed at about 3:15 p.m., St. Thomas said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2
Actually it was antiwar protesters - different protest. Primary issue appeared to be people were not allowed to enter with protest signs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/us-usa-smithsonian-protests-idUSTRE79800C20111009
so the question is: Do the protestors know why they are there? What are they protesting? All forms of protest are not wrong - however, this pointless, squalid mess is. I'm complaining about Obama attempting to legitimize this and again - these protestors are being USED by the left, they are accomplishing nothing.
What do they want? Handouts? Political change? What? The endeavor is pointless and silly.
The tea party has become a force in politics...united in message. I don't see that happening here.
The message is clear enough to me: The system is broken and we're not going to take it any more.
Here's an op-ed from the New York Times that you might find enlightening: http://tinyurl.com/NYT-Op-Ed-on-OWS
It seems some very intelligent people got the point, and believe me, there is a point.
I recently retired, but I'm a CPA and have held highly responsible jobs auditing insurance company finances and Federal government contracts. Although I'm comfortable financially speaking, our current so-called democracy makes my skin crawl. It is dominated by large, rich corporations, not we, the people. I give to my church and carefully selected charities, primarily one for the homeless and the SPCA. As soon as I get my long-neglected home in reasonable order, I plan to volunteer. I also plan to attend Occupy Philadelphia, an hour's train ride away.
I'm thrilled to see such a large group of people standing up to the suits who've gotten rich by cheating the rest of us.
Likewise, what it is about has already been posted NYT op-ed Confronting the Malefactors (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), OccupyWallSt (http://www.occupywallst.org) unofficial, and Adbusters (http://www.adbusters.com) (who started the call before it was what it is now).
My apologies, Zoebird. I didn't read all of the posts before I posted myself, and duplicated your reference to the NYT Op-Ed by Paul Krugman. A big :+1: to your posts!
loosechickens
10-9-11, 12:16am
If the folks with huge wealth and power in this country are not successful in dividing the American people, and if the Tea Party folks begin to realize that they have a LOT of common cause with these young people, and see a bit past the hair and clothes and political labels, they'd realize that the grievances of both groups have a lot of common cause, and both groups would be really, really surprised if they could realize how they could work together to wrest control of our country from the 1% who has been buying our government and turning it to only their benefit, and REALLY take our country back.
Of course, it would mean thinking, not allowing oneself to be propagandized by the big corporate media outlets and politicians who have a lot to gain by making sure those various groups of people that make up the 99% never realize just how much they have in common.
Catwoman, I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by these Occupy Wall Street folks that you feel the need to dismiss them as squalid hippies, etc., but it really isn't true, any more than it was true that the Tea Party protests were nothing but a bunch of fat, white, Medicare recipients who wanted to return the country to the nostalgic "perfect" place it was before civil rights and all those brown immigrants started taking over "their" country.
There were some racists in the Tea Party folks, and there are some do-less, layabout young people in this group, but the core grievances that both groups have, that somehow the middle class in this country is being squeezed to death, people are losing their hold in the middle class, life for even those who work hard and make all the right decisions seems to be going backward, not forward.......both groups are FULL of hard working Americans who love their country, feel as though they and people like them are being sold down the river by the very richest of the rich who have tilted the playing field ever more in their direction by literally buying the affections of enough of our lawmakers that the 99% of the country is being run for the benefit of those few......THOSE people make up the mass of both groups, and together, they would be formidable.
SO formidable that the powerful in this country are dead set to set them on each other, magnifying every difference, masking every commonality, so as to maintain that hold on power.
Open your eyes.....stop looking for differences, stop the labeling and the disrespecting, and look for all the ways they are echoing things that even your hardest Tea Party heart and most fundamentalist Christian could find in common with them. I think you'll be surprised.
I kind of find myself thinking of the great environmental things that have been accomplished as "treehuggers" and "sportsmen" have begun to work together to protect the environment. Perhaps with different aims in mind, but recognizing the importance of an intact biosphere to both. Even the most good ole boy, anti-hippie hunter or fisherman knows that without intact environment, there isn't good hunting or fishing. And even "save every lamb" environmentalists can recognize that unlimited growth of animal populations can be unhealthy without the stabilizing influence of hunting seasons to replace the large predators that used to keep those populations in check. Two VERY disparate groups, with two VERY different outlooks, but realizing they have common cause to obtain the ends important to each.
the Tea Party and these Occupy Wall Street folks have a LOT more in common than they would ever believe. A LOT more in common. Let's hope they are smart enough to realize it.
loosechickens
10-9-11, 12:34am
Some VERY interesting thoughts here:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1916/what-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-have-in-common
excerpt:
"The Occupy Wall Street protesters wave signs broadly demanding a better economic system, less government interference, an end to costly war, and a greater focus on privacy.
Sound familiar? Limits on government intrusion into Americans’ private lives and economic reform are also major talking points for Tea Partiers.
Strikingly, both of these movements claim they represent the voice of average Americans, and they are right. Many Americans who are disillusioned with government’s ability to handle the on-going economic crisis sympathize with these demands. But if these movements represent the “normal” American voter’s views, what does that say about where most citizens stand on the political spectrum?
The emergence of the hard-right leaning Tea Party and left-leaning Occupy Wall Street movements is an indication that rhetoric aside, Americans are not polarized, but rather share similar goals and objectives. Different groups may spring up seeking to tackle the same political problems, but they aren’t limited to solving the puzzle based on one-sided political ideology. Instead, both liberals and conservatives utilize the same strategies to achieve the same goals. In the case of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, both use grassroots mobilization strategies that seek to address Americans’ disillusionment and deep-seeded anger with the government and our economic system.
Each movement holds very different demographics. Those who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party tend to be conservative, white, married, male, and over the age of 45. The Occupy Wall Street supporters so far have been left-leaning and mostly young. Yet through these demographics, similar rallying cries are heard. Each movement is tired of business-as-usual politics, an opinion shared by a majority of Americans. Congressional approval in America is at an all-time low of 12%. Public trust in government is only slightly better, at 15%. 91% of Americans don’t think the national economy is in good shape.
We shouldn’t look at the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street as fringe groups composed of radicals. Each truly does echo wider sentiments of a swath of Americans, and uses similar strategies to attempt to affect policy."
From CBSNewYork:
The cramped and noisy protesters in Zuccotti Park does not appear to be going anywhere soon. To date, the occupation has cost the city an extra $2 million in police overtime alone.
The owners of the private park, Brookfield Office Properties, cannot simply eject the demonstrators because the charter for the park allows 24-hour public access. But the owners never counted on this and appear to be getting fed up.
In a statement they said “because the protestors refuse to cooperate…the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
Of course, the people that built zuccotti park don't mention that they built the park in exchange for buildign a much taller building across the street then they could have otherwise. If the gov't had been smart at that time they've taken ownership of zuccotti park and now we wouldn't have owners of a much taller building whining like babies about what has happened to their poor ****ing park.
Of course, the people that built zuccotti park don't mention that they built the park in exchange for buildign a much taller building across the street then they could have otherwise. If the gov't had been smart at that time they've taken ownership of zuccotti park and now we wouldn't have owners of a much taller building whining like babies about what has happened to their poor ****ing park.
The above by JP1 summarizes in a nutshell what I believe is so wrong with all of this. The park is a privately owned piece of property. Nevermind the origins of the original transaction to purchase it. Someone owns it and the owners are supposed to be "whining like babies about what has happened to their poor ......park." The private property of citizens should be respected. This is all about redistribution of wealth...which again leads me to say the private property of citizens should be respected.
Loosechickens, I am not the least bit threatened by this. Just disgusted. Obama didn't get the "summer of discontent" that he wanted so the flames of this are being fanned to try and give him even a smidgen of legitimacy as President, he might even be able to make a speech about it!
Here are some bits from Occupy Atlanta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI
What an effective force - and so coherent....hahahahahaha
Catwoman - It is NOT about the redistribution of wealth. It is about saving our country from going down the tubes.
Please listen to the words that the toxic dem senator said in earlier post.
And respond just to his words, not the person.
You are putting old ideas on a new problem and anyone that is calling for sheer redistribution of wealth is putting old ideas on a new problem.
You yourself cited a harworking young person in your family having challenges following graduation - there should be a job of meaning waiting for her when she gets out of college. (As long as said college graduate studied something that there is a demand for in current market -- meaning something practical, not underwater basketweaving)
This movement for me is about there is a scarcity of jobs in this country.
Rich people, I'm happy for you - Be super rich. Buy your 200 mil boat or whatever had someone upset earlier in this post - you or your money working for you earned that money.
But pay the same percentage rate or higher in taxes as someone that makes less than you.
And for the 50% or that can't pay federal taxes - how can you squeeze blood from a turnip? Let's put our energy on getting these folks into a higher tax bracket so they can contribute.
What angers me is that there are people that want to work, but well paying jobs aren't out there
Furthermore - those that ARE protesting solely on Redistribution of Wealth - Grow up and get a clue! Go find a country that concept has been successful... oh wait, there really isn't one, is there?
Even China has had to embrace capitalism to progress.
Furthermore - those that ARE protesting solely on Redistribution of Wealth - Grow up and get a clue! Go find a country that concept has been successful... oh wait, there really isn't one, is there?
Even China has had to embrace capitalism to progress.
So we should be more like China?
There are a lot of countries where a few have pretty much everything and the rest have pretty much nothing - capitalism doesn't seem to work very well in those places, at least not for what we expect capitalism to do in this country.
Mountainlaurel, I agree that people want to work and well-paying jobs aren't out there. Over-regulation, over-taxation and people (corps. and small employers) holding on to their money right now rather than hiring and innovating are what is causing the jobs scarcity. Fear of Obama's policies as described in previous sentence are what is choking the economy. Obamacare is killing R & D - overtaxation is killing R & D which is sending millions of jobs overseas...
They may be mad about this but their anger is mis-directed.
I can not be counted among the rich. I can guarantee you if a son or daughter of mine were to spend an ounce of their time in this sort of time-wasting, ridiculous endeavor - I would be ashamed. We get up, we work, we identify problems, we fix them. The only time in our history I would have ever joined a protest and been proud to be part of one was the work of MLK jr. That was a worthy cause.l
This is spoiled brats wanting the govt. to feed them and wipe their bottoms.
More good works from the Occupy Wall St. people:
The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on the Mall was abruptly closed Saturday afternoon after a “large group of protesters” tried to push past security guards and enter the museum, Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said.
At least one demonstrator was pepper-sprayed by a museum guard in the confrontation, St. Thomas said. Several witnesses said that more than a dozen people were affected by the spray.
The museum was closed at about 3:15 p.m., St. Thomas said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2
Appears that was agent provocateurs: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/08/1024352/-Conservative-Magazine-Brags-of-its-Agent-Provacateurs-Role-in-Provoking-Police-Action-in-DC-?via=siderec
The above by JP1 summarizes in a nutshell what I believe is so wrong with all of this. The park is a privately owned piece of property. Nevermind the origins of the original transaction to purchase it. Someone owns it and the owners are supposed to be "whining like babies about what has happened to their poor ......park." The private property of citizens should be respected. This is all about redistribution of wealth...which again leads me to say the private property of citizens should be respected.
Except that part of their deal was that they had to build a park for PUBLIC USE. They stopped having all the benefits of private property ownership of the park land when they made the deal. As long as the protestors are acting within the law it's not really their place to complain. And if the protestors were/are acting illegally I'm sure the police would only be too happy to step in and arrest them.
early morning
10-9-11, 10:35am
I can guarantee you if a son or daughter of mine were to spend an ounce of their time in this sort of time-wasting, ridiculous endeavor - I would be ashamed. If my son or daughter were to spend some of their time taking part in this protest - the very essence of democratic rights, enshrined in the first amendment - I would be PROUD. I simply can't imagine a parent being ashamed of a child who wishes to better their world and who is willing to put themselves on the line to do so, regardless of the format. Donating to charities, volunteering, serving in the military - and yes, protesting, if that is what one's beliefs call for! I am not so foolish as to think that my children and grandchildren (if I had any of those) must believe as I do to be good people.
edit for clarity....
Zigzagman
10-9-11, 11:17am
Over-regulation, over-taxation and people (corps. and small employers) holding on to their money right now rather than hiring and innovating are what is causing the jobs scarcity.
Since 1980 the trend has been de-regulation and our taxes are at a historical low.
I can guarantee you if a son or daughter of mine were to spend an ounce of their time in this sort of time-wasting, ridiculous endeavor - I would be ashamed. Really?
Peace
I'm gonna "yeah that" to zigzagman's post. Because it is more accurate that catwoman's characterization.
i don't know any people at the rallies who are going for redistribution of wealth.
One thing that the Tea Party was adamantly against was bailing out the auto and banking industries because of the potential corruption AND the lack of guarantee that it would actually help the economy.
One thing that Occupy Wall St is about is not bailing banks and other corporations when there's no obvious, clear development of the economy (job creation, etc).
Seems to me that they have everything in common, if you can segregate it from the ridiculous hate-mongering going on via the media.
When a variety of media outlets have questioned some protestors on live t.v., asking them "Why are you here and what are you protesting?" -Responses included:
I don't know..seems like the place to be.
Dude..where's my car?
I'm raging man.
This is a silly effort on behalf of the far left to legitimize this "protest". Dems think they can come up with their own sort of tea party. Remember the nasty mess left in the aftermath of Woodstock? These people aren't going to clean up after themselves. They need to go home shower, put on some fresh tye-dye and hemp garments and go find a job.
1. This is not a pseudo grassroots movement with billionaire underwriters. This is a bunch of folks who are diverse in their viewpoints and concerns, but what undergirds the protest is the notion that the economic system isn't working well for everyone. Wall Street is easy to target because it is inhabited by people who are grossly overcompensated for their meager contributions to society.
So, of course it's barely organized. Of course the concerns are diffuse and difficult to articulate. Some of the folks will seem foolish or misinformed. That doesn't mean everyone participating is a moron, as you are implying.
2. The Democratic party has not, as of yet, co-opted the OWS movement. Unlike the tea party, which is merely a subbrand of the GOP.
2. You right wingers are so predictable. The moment a left leaning protest takes place, time to do some hippy punching. Jesus, can you give it up already? Not everyone who sympathizes with OWS is a dfh, just like not everyone who sympathizes with the tea party is necesssarily a racist.
3. Find a job? That's one of the problems, have you noticed that folks are having a hard time getting good jobs these days? That's one of the problems that ordinary folks are dealing with.
Unbelievable.
"The system is broken. It needs to be reformed. People are tired of being used and lied to. They voted for change and were ignored when they expressed their views and quite strongly. And when they complain, they are ridiculed. And now they are getting really angry. And the powers-that-be are trying to figure out how to play them for their own ends."
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/10/modern-economics-money-masters-and.html
Mountainlaurel, I agree that people want to work and well-paying jobs aren't out there. Over-regulation, over-taxation and people (corps. and small employers) holding on to their money right now rather than hiring and innovating are what is causing the jobs scarcity. Fear of Obama's policies as described in previous sentence are what is choking the economy. Obamacare is killing R & D - overtaxation is killing R & D which is sending millions of jobs overseas...
They may be mad about this but their anger is mis-directed.
I can not be counted among the rich. I can guarantee you if a son or daughter of mine were to spend an ounce of their time in this sort of time-wasting, ridiculous endeavor - I would be ashamed. We get up, we work, we identify problems, we fix them. The only time in our history I would have ever joined a protest and been proud to be part of one was the work of MLK jr. That was a worthy cause.l
This is spoiled brats wanting the govt. to feed them and wipe their bottoms.
1. Obama is NOT the cause of the jobs crisis. You really are brainwashed. Stop watching Fox News.
2. Obamacare has NOTHING to do with R & D. That is just ridiculous on its face. Obamacare is only health insurance reform. What the hell does that have to do with R & D?
3. Their anger is directed at the economic oligarchy in this country. I would say your anger at Obama and the left wing is mis-directed.
4. MLK Jr. was a proponent of economic justice as well as racial equality. He'd be a OWS supporter.
5. Spoiled brats? That's nasty. It is their right to protest whatever they want to protest. They are not asking for welfare or government handouts. They are asking for government to start representing THEIR interests as the vast majority of the population.
I do not understand why you insist on aligning yourself with the interests of the ultra elite in this country. Why are you supporting policies that favor them over your own interests?
Rosebud, we must be looking at different universes....Obama IS the cause of the jobs crisis. Everybody with money is afraid to let go of it due to his policies, everybody is suffering as a result. I can't help but find your comment about being brainwashed and aligning myself with ultra elites, and oh yes, "oligarchy" humorous...You are the one spouting the lefty pablum you have all been spoon fed. No worries, this will all be over soon, the taxpayers will pay for the extra police protection, pay for cleaning up the mess these folks have left while their protests will have accomplished nothing. Oh well, maybe some protestors were entertained for a bit. That's all, its really nothing. Desperate straws Pelosi and Obama are grasping at to try and create a crisis...They need a good crisis right now to deflect from their complete incompetence
Rosebud, we must be looking at different universes....Obama IS the cause of the jobs crisis. Everybody with money is afraid to let go of it due to his policies, everybody is suffering as a result. I can't help but find your comment about being brainwashed and aligning myself with ultra elites, and oh yes, "oligarchy" humorous...You are the one spouting the lefty pablum you have all been spoon fed. No worries, this will all be over soon, the taxpayers will pay for the extra police protection, pay for cleaning up the mess these folks have left while their protests will have accomplished nothing. Oh well, maybe some protestors were entertained for a bit. That's all, its really nothing. Desperate straws Pelosi and Obama are grasping at to try and create a crisis...They need a good crisis right now to deflect from their complete incompetence
What policies would that be? Exactly which policies of Obama's have created this job problem?
I'm looking forward to reading the list of policies of Obama's that created this job problem as well as HOW they created it. I would particularly like to see the list of the laws (by title and number if possible) and/or polices (via policy statements from the white house or via other governmental offices), and evidence of HOW those specific laws or policies created the job crisis in 3 years.
iris lily
10-9-11, 11:18pm
The overall environment of uncertainty in business expenses is one thing that is preventing businesses from expanding and hiring.
ObamaCare dictates some additional expenses for employers. The recent hearings centered on some of those:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Health/060211/Pitts.pdf
From my quick skim it seems that the additional burden for businesses are just getting started with:
* higher prices as insurance companies are driven out of business --fewer service providers
* plans that will lose their grandfathered status
* essential minimum coverage that employers will be required to meet
and others coming...
Zigzagman
10-10-11, 12:39am
It appears that there are efforts to associate the OWS movement with the Dems - not the case, but if the GOP tries and push that idea it will only be to their detriment. People really did want hope and change and it didn't happen. Most people I know have not given up but have become even more frustrated with the continuing corporate control of our government.
The lines are being drawn quite clearly these days - attacks on SS and Medicare, eliminating almost all environmental protection, crony capitalism, greed is not only good but viewed as American Exceptionalism. I don't think that is want most of "the people" in this nation had in mind and the right is having a very hard time using their typical wedge issues (gays, guns, god) to distract that fact these days and I don't think those tired old conservative ideas will work much longer, especially with the youth.
Peace
Irislily,
that statement (linked) isn't evidence of how obama's policies or laws have "created this job situation."
first, the primary statement asserts a May 2011 survey that states that the majority of companies may change their insuring processes due to PPACA (meaning, increase copay/premiums OR give up the grandfathered insurance).
this statement is about what they may do -- not what they have done or are forced to do or have been forced to do or whatever. it's a conjecture of what they *may* do as of May 2011.
because there is no evidence that any company has done any changing in regards to the insurance that they provide in the statement, there is no evidence that their bottom line has been affected, and likewise no evidence that it has caused companies to have to lay off employees or be unable to hire more employees.
It is only conjecture that the law *may* negatively impact their bottom lines and therefore *may* continue to impact the job situation (or not improve it), but this is still just conjecture, not facts.
Thus, the statement is not evidence that Obama's policy/laws have "Created this job situation."
Second, I might point out that "this job situation" has been happening for many years. PPACA came into effect in March 2011.
According to this NYT article from Feb 5, 2010, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06jobs.html) it is reported that "Jobless Rate Falls to 9.7%, Giving Hope that The Worst is Over." The current unemployment rate (September 2011) is 9.1% (i grant, these rates are not the entire picture -- as per prior posts).
It seems pretty clear that the PPACA has not positively or negatively impacted the job market at this point, first because the unemployment rate was HIGHER before it became law and, since then, has been slightly (but steadily) decreasing -- which some might try to argue that it could be "because" but obviously correlation and causation are two different things -- and second, because there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that companies have acted one way or another regarding insurance policies and how it affects their bottom line -- at least as far as we know as of May 2011 (by your link).
So, no, it isn't evidence to support the claim.
Feel free to keep it coming. it's interesting to read this stuff.
The private property of citizens should be respected. This is all about redistribution of wealth...which again leads me to say the private property of citizens should be respected.
Ok. But... cheating people out of their homes and life savings by means of fraudulent mortgages and deceptive fine print is also a form of redistribution of wealth, a particularly viscious one. For millions of us who didn't have much to begin with, all our wealth has already been redistributed to multinational megabanks. Many are simply asking to have their private property rights respected as well, rather than fraudulently stripped away by obscenely wealthy institutions.
iris lily
10-10-11, 1:29am
Irislily,
that statement (linked) isn't evidence of how obama's policies or laws have "created this job situation."
first, the primary statement asserts a May 2011 survey that states that the majority of companies may change their insuring processes due to PPACA (meaning, increase copay/premiums OR give up the grandfathered insurance).
this statement is about what they may do -- not what they have done or are forced to do or have been forced to do or whatever. it's a conjecture of what they *may* do as of May 2011.
oh agreed, it's conjecture because the future is uncertain, my premise.
Do you think uncertainty is good for the present business climate?
So we should be more like China?
There are a lot of countries where a few have pretty much everything and the rest have pretty much nothing - capitalism doesn't seem to work very well in those places, at least not for what we expect capitalism to do in this country.
Yup, we call those places "banana republics." What is concerning many experts is the direction the US is taking, very rapidly becoming more unequal than many traditional "banana republics" and falling far behind some of the countries of Europe that used to be behind us.
http://img.slate.com/media/3/100914_NoahT_GreatDivergence.pdf
The US is now "more unequal than Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador." Your chances of rising from the bottom to any degree of comfort in the US is now less than in France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, or Spain. The concentration of wealth is more unequal now than at any time since the end of the age of the Robber Barons, and that simply can't be sustained.
And FYI, US citizens and corporations currently pay the lowest tax burden since 1958, making "over-taxed" just another ideological sound bite.
Whether or not PPACA creates more or less uncertainity is really a matter of opinion and belief, not fact.
I feel confident saying that PPACA did not "cause this job situation" and to date has not positively or negatively impacted "the job situation" because there is no *evidence* to support this claim or belief.
It might also be noted that business people (such as myself -- people who run their own businesses) are pretty comfortable with uncertainty, and live with a lot of it. I think uncertainty is the business climate. YOu do a lot of work and planning and budgeting and forecasting, but ultimately, it's always uncertain. that's what business is.
heck, that's what life is.
Open your eyes!!
moratorium on offshore drilling - jobs killer
obamacare - jobs killer, R & D killer
New regs on irs reporting on small business - jobs killer
constant threat (from pres.) of raising taxes - jobs killer
auto industry bailout - jobs killer
cash for clunkers - jobs killer
constant threat of obamacare expenses on business owners - jobs killer, direct cause of job relocations overseas
living in the union's pockets, effectively being on the unions payroll - jobs killer
you want specifics - there are too, too many to list here but it is basic cause and effect. If you want to live where the government takes care of you, takes half or more of your paycheck, regulates virtually everything you do - then move. Americans won't stand for it. Realizing this is a liberal leaning group, I think many of you are not in touch with mainstream, middle class voters. 13 months and you will see the referendum.
Catwomen, maybe I'm missing your point, but there is no doubt the financial crisis caused joblessness and Obama is no where near the top of causes for the crisis. Nor are there any proposals by him, to take "more than half" a paycheck. Even the tax proposals for the rich are modest. Obama has been less effective in correctling unemployment than most would like, but he is very far from the core of the issues, and there is some general agreement that the stimulus prevented us from going deeper into recession or depression.
I think it's pretty clear that President Obama didn't cause the job crisis we find ourselves in, but it seems equally clear to me that his policies contribute to the continuation of the crisis.
People can say what they want about the tax climate for business in this country being the lowest it has been in decades, but until they realize that our government still imposes a harsher burden on business than other countries, they shouldn't be surprised at the outcome. And further, no one should be surprised at business being reluctant to commit to further jobs during periods of uncertainty regarding future regulation, taxes and government mandates. If there's one thing this administration has done well, it's to voice their desire to impose more of those three items onto the very people they depend upon to improve the economy.
Alan, perhaps you saw the CEO of GE on 60 minutes last night. He was in favor of a flat 20% corporate tax with no loopholes. He said that this is in line with much of Europe and would mean more taxes for some, and less for others. I'm not the tax expert that you seem to be, but thought this was interesting.
I'm certainly not an expert, but it doesn't take one to realize that the US has a higher corporate tax rate than any of our European neighbors. My company would benefit from a flat 20% corporate tax.
As an example, my company just purchased one division of an Irish company and has decided to re-organize as an Irish corporation. There are several reasons for this, one being that it's easier to get regulatory approvals to sell our products in the EU as an EU based company, but another major factor is the corporate tax rate. Ireland has a 12.5% corporate tax rate, while our historic US effective corporate tax rate has been closer to 30%.
This is what I think the whole OWS is about, presented in a slightly humorous fashion. The problem I see is that, for the most part, business did not commit any crimes based on our current laws. The crimes commited were moral crimes. When we talk about more or less regulation, there in lies some of the core issues to me. (Personally I think it is time for people to start looking to a third party with better candidates, as I see the Republicans and the tea party married to Wall Street and the Democrats serving them dinner in their lodge).
http://www.rouchnaturephotos.com/Personal/Vermont-Sugar-Season/i-Lj7fZNr/0/Th/wallstcartoon-Th.jpg (http://www.rouchnaturephotos.com/Personal/Vermont-Sugar-Season/16383251_wnDbKV#1522426214_Lj7fZNr)
I think it's pretty clear that President Obama didn't cause the job crisis we find ourselves in, but it seems equally clear to me that his policies contribute to the continuation of the crisis.
People can say what they want about the tax climate for business in this country being the lowest it has been in decades, but until they realize that our government still imposes a harsher burden on business than other countries, they shouldn't be surprised at the outcome. And further, no one should be surprised at business being reluctant to commit to further jobs during periods of uncertainty regarding future regulation, taxes and government mandates. If there's one thing this administration has done well, it's to voice their desire to impose more of those three items onto the very people they depend upon to improve the economy.
What policies? Which ones Alan? Quit the Rush Beck talking points and give us specifics!
You do realize NOTHING has changed in the tax policies since George Bush started us on this spiral down the rabbit hole with his tax breaks for the wealthy. Nothing. Obama hasn't changed a thing, and yet, where are the jobs? Where is all this business confidence and 'job creating' that the lower tax rates were supposed to give us? When did we start to decline? Well, I suppose you could go back to Saint Ronald and his trickle down bs...but recently the deficit started spiraling out of control because of Bush's tax breaks and unfunded wars. Directly related. And now we are supposed to believe only a Republican can ride in and save the day? Really? Do we have stupid tattooed on our foreheads!
And please stop with the incredibly ignorant republican line about how 'the threat of FUTURE taxes and, and, things will make business people stop doing business'. What a load of horse hocky! This is a consumer driven economy. If there is a market, REAL business people will satisfy that market. McDonald's isn't going to close down a successful store because they might have to pay a bit more in taxes. No business person is going to refuse $10,000 because he/she might have to pay $1000 in taxes.
It's this kind of talking point that really makes my blood boil because it assumes we are all just too stupid to figure this one out.
OK, show of hands among the business people here. Yesterday you made 10,000. Today you will make 9,000. Is that going to make you close shop?
iris lily
10-10-11, 10:43am
Saturday Night Live joked about the OWS protestors, saying that they are really VERY different from Tea Party protesters because the OWS people are anarchists and the Tea Partiers want no government. So there. ha ha.
iris lily
10-10-11, 10:44am
...
OK, show of hands among the business people here. Yesterday you made 10,000. Today you will make 9,000. Is that going to make you close shop?
Close shop? Was that was we were talking about? A business person who is losing money is not going to hire. Hiring is on hold. We were talking about the environment for adding more jobs and it's not there.
What policies? Which ones Alan? Quit the Rush Beck talking points and give us specifics!
You do realize NOTHING has changed in the tax policies since George Bush started us on this spiral down the rabbit hole with his tax breaks for the wealthy. Nothing. Obama hasn't changed a thing, and yet, where are the jobs? Where is all this business confidence and 'job creating' that the lower tax rates were supposed to give us? When did we start to decline? Well, I suppose you could go back to Saint Ronald and his trickle down bs...but recently the deficit started spiraling out of control because of Bush's tax breaks and unfunded wars. Directly related. And now we are supposed to believe only a Republican can ride in and save the day? Really? Do we have stupid tattooed on our foreheads!
And please stop with the incredibly ignorant republican line about how 'the threat of FUTURE taxes and, and, things will make business people stop doing business'. What a load of horse hocky! This is a consumer driven economy. If there is a market, REAL business people will satisfy that market. McDonald's isn't going to close down a successful store because they might have to pay a bit more in taxes. No business person is going to refuse $10,000 because he/she might have to pay $1000 in taxes.
It's this kind of talking point that really makes my blood boil because it assumes we are all just too stupid to figure this one out.
OK, show of hands among the business people here. Yesterday you made 10,000. Today you will make 9,000. Is that going to make you close shop?
Peggy, I mentioned three obstacles to growth, regulation, taxes and mandates.
For your edification, this administration has imposed, or has plans to impose, more regulations onto the free market than any other administration in history. So much so that even the President has admitted that it is necessary to slow down the implementation of some in order to help the market recover. There are currently nearly 2500 proposed regulations on businesses awaiting implementation at a potential cost of nearly a trillion dollars over 10 years.
While many people talk about tax rates being at their lowest point in years, the reality is that we have been promised that those rates are temporary. All businesses forecast their budgets out 3 to 5 years, a period in which it is extremely likely that tax rates on business and individuals will rise. The question is, to what level?
Throw on a few mandates such as the government dictating what levels of health insurance an employer must offer to each employee and the risk of fines for non-compliance and you've put together a perfect storm of job depression.
Oh, and if you look in the mirror and see "diputs" on your forehead, the answer is yes.:laff:
Catwoman
10-10-11, 12:45pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-begins-to-chafe-its-neighbors.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Awesome what they are accomplishing!
Catwoman: all conjecture, no evidence.
Iris Lily: as i've said all along (or said several pages ago) the original Tea party (which was Ron Paul supporters and libertarians and anarchists before it got taken over or coopted by the theocon arm of the republican party) were making the SAME grievances as the OWS. You get props for at least giving a source for your conjectures without evidence.
I have no problem with people filtering information through a specific lens that would indicate to them that "this is a bad idea." but that is still their OPINION and not a fact.
Now, here are some facts/evidence:
According to several articles online (this one most succinct (http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/cause_recession.htm) and written by Kimberly Amadeo), the cause of the current recession was the bursting of the housing market bubble in 2006.
Obama didn't become president until January 2009.
Amadeo asserts that three elements cause recessions: low interest rates, irrational exuberance on the part of investors (which in this aspect meant a great deal of lending on the part of banks with cheap mortgages), and high interest rates that pop the bubble.
All three of these factors happened on G W Bush's watch, btw, before Obama became president.
Also on G W Bush's watch, there was the bank bail out in October 2008. Obama hadn't even been elected yet.
This bail out established TARP/EESA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program) (wiki, i haven't tracked down all of the information in the references yet to verify it, but it seems accurate thus far) which GWB signed into law.
---
I think it's fair to say -- leaving hte land of fact now for opinion -- that a lot of people in the US, regardless of party affiliation, are really upset by how this hasn't worked. Emotionally speaking, a lot of people see a lot of fraud, a lot of banks still foreclosing even though a large part of this is about trying to keep people in homes, and of course, there is a lot of foreclosure fraud (not necessarily related to or because of TARP).
---
Causes of the Automotive Industry Crisis is another area that I think is of interest, since the bail out was mentioned. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008–2010) (again, i haven't run down all of the references), it asserts that the Automotive Industry crisis was part of the global automotive crisis that particularly impacted american automotive industry.
This global crisis was caused by the increase in costs of automotive fuels, which was in turn caused by the "energy crisis of 2003-2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis)." This particularly affected the american industry as their primary sales were light trucks (SUVs, etc), which had low fuel efficiency.
Please note that I am not making any claim that GWB caused this crisis. But, the three factors in the increase of the price of crude oil were: 1. tensions in the middle east; 2. decline in petroleum reserves and concerns over peak oil; and 3. oil price speculation.
Now, the Automotive Bailout of 2 of the Big 3 American automakers occurred in January of 2009, after they asked for the bailout in Dec 2008, which they asked for and was managed under the EESA -- the law which passed in October of 2008.
---
back to opinion for a moment, I agree that this bailout might have been a bad move. Part of the equation here is that in 2006, when sales of those big vehicles declined, instead of regrouping and investing in more efficient cars that the market demanded (seeing as the increase in priuses on the road), they offered low interest rate loans on expensive cars with expensive fuel.
though, soemtimes, i think the american public is dumb about money -- houses bigger than you need and a mortgage higher than you can afford, needlessly large light trucks that cost a lot to fuel to drive to the starbucks to buy overpriced coffee. I mean, people can be stupid.
but, the automakers really weren't going well on this whole process. .. or really, managing their business properly. And it chafes me that they weren't AND that they got bailed out.
---
Cash for Clunkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System) can, effectively, be blamed on Obama, seeing as he was in office at that time. And, according to studies by the UNiv of Delaware among others, the program cost more than it created. So yeah, definitely a "bad idea" moment.
----
From here, the question is "what to do about recessions?"
Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8046711/How-Japan-Canada-and-Sweden-coped-with-recession.html) is an article that describes what Canada, Japan, and Sweden did with their 1990s recessions -- and what those outcomes were.
Canada -- Massive cuts in government spending plus fiscal tightening by the public keeping taxes from going up, as well as consumers not consuming as much, and also a concerted decrease of interest rates.
Japan -- (commonly used as an example of what not to do) -- fear of inflation meant that the government tried to keep prices low, but banks were also not seen as safe. there was a sales tax increase in 1997, which was seen as a bad move. The whole thing caused a deflation cycle, that Japan still struggles with, even at the time of the article in Oct 2010.
Sweden -- higher taxes plus bank bailouts that guarateed creditors decreased consumer spending, but kept consumer confidence. This program is generally seen as a success. The high taxes and low deficit, though, also helped sweden weather then current recession without as much damage as it's neighbors. "But the Swedish model of economic management relies on a level of co-operation between state, workers and unions not seen here [UK]."
--
It turns out that there are potentially A LOT of ways (not the japanese way! lol) to "solve" the recession. THere is the canadian way -- cutting government, keeping taxes low, and consumers being savvy in spending until things start to recover. There is also the swedish way -- bailing banks, increasing taxes, and decreasing the deficit.
And i would bet, there are 100s of other creative, diverse ways that this process can be undertaken.
---
But the real if -- and this is for you Catwoman and Iris lily et al -- will you join us in a conversation? Rather than "blame obama" and "i hate hippies" language, how about a REAL dialogue about these issues?
We are in a recession. Our world is in a world of hurt. Our government -- whether run by republicans or democrats -- isn't working (I believe in part because corporate interests and money run the policies, and htat is government corruption).
What OWS is about is putting people back into the equation. It is not about republicans or democrates. it's about the people.
truly, it's about the people.
And btw, here is a cool video (http://vimeo.com/30081785) made at OWS by OWS showing how these dirty hippies are so disorganized. :)
and FWIW, i find the "go live in another country" language to be really really offensive.
it's essentially saying "if you disagree with me, then you don't belong in the US!" but the problem with this statement is that the US is built on dissent. The right of free speech, the right of freedom or religion, the right to assemble, the right to protest. . . all of these things are about our rights to have different ideas and opinions about everything and still speak out for what we feel is right, and coexist with each other.
telling people to leave if they don't agree with you is totalitarianism. it's the antithesis of the american ideal.
and it's ironic that i live in another country, i'm sure. I am an american, and i came here for opportunity, NOT to run away from america, and not because i didn't like the way it was going or what have you.
I am proud to be american and i love the US. I love so much more about it than I even realized while I was living there. I now see myself so much more clearly now that i am living over seas. I see our greatness so much more clearly, and even less our flaws.
But this language of "don't like it, leave" -- it needs to be eschewed. it's truly mean-spirited and unamerican.
.......We are in a recession. Our world is in a world of hurt. Our government -- whether run by republicans or democrats -- isn't working (I believe in part because corporate interests and money run the policies, and htat is government corruption)......
Our government tells us that the recession ended in 2009. Now we're in that area of limited growth which pre-dates a double-dip recession.
i don't see how my quote and your statement go together.
They don't. We're either in a recession or we're not. You say we are, our government says that was so a year or so ago.
Zigzagman
10-10-11, 6:34pm
They don't. We're either in a recession or we're not. You say we are, our government says that was so a year or so ago.
What do you say, Alan? In a recession or not. You can even make up your on definition of recession.>8)
I say we are in a funk - where profit for anything and everything is the "axis of evil". >:(
How do we get out of it - we simply nationalize the banking system that has not served us well at all.
My biggest fear is that we do nothing, or very little, to curb the problems that caused us to get into this situation. I think it is time to "take the fat cats to the woodshed". Working people, retirees, we are all paying for this mindless idea that deregulation is good for America.
If there is a GOD, convince the brainless that greed and profit are not good for America. "How long has this been going on"?
Peace
What do you say, Alan? In a recession or not. You can even make up your on definition of recession.>8)
I think we are. If a recession is a period of negative or stagnant growth, I'd say we're about as stagnant as we could possibly be.
I say we are in a funk - where profit for anything and everything is the "axis of evil". >:(
I agree with the "funk" but profit is certainly not evil. Without profit we'd still be mired in the dark ages.
How do we get out of it - we simply nationalize the banking system that has not served us well at all.
What makes you think the government could do a better job? As Milton Friedman said: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." I've seen no evidence that this sentiment is incorrect.
My biggest fear is that we do nothing, or very little, to curb the problems that caused us to get into this situation. I think it is time to "take the fat cats to the woodshed". Working people, retirees, we are all paying for this mindless idea that deregulation is good for America.
There's a balance between deregulation and excessive regulation. Let's not over-react and completely destroy the economy. I believe we're seeing components of that now.
If there is a GOD, convince the brainless that greed and profit are good for America.
There, I fixed that for ya. :D
and in reality, small business owners are *not* blaming regulation (or possible regulation, or threat of regulation, or any other regulation boogie-man) for the business slow-down:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-08/business/ct-biz-0908-bf-small-biz-20110908_1_small-businesses-regulations-health-care
and in reality, small business owners are *not* blaming regulation (or possible regulation, or threat of regulation, or any other regulation boogie-man) for the business slow-down:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-08/business/ct-biz-0908-bf-small-biz-20110908_1_small-businesses-regulations-health-care
If that is directed at me, I never said that regulation, possible regulation, yada, yada, was a cause for business slow-down. I suggested it, along with the unknown nature of promised new taxation and government mandates, as a reason that businesses weren't hiring new employees.
If that wasn't clear, I apologize.
Lainey, do you actually know anyone who owns a small business? I do - am married to one and the reality is quite different than the article you linked. This is a firm that typically employs 35 to 40 people, they have significantly downsized...This is a direct result of the Obama economy and threat of Obama care.
"The system is broken. It needs to be reformed. People are tired of being used and lied to. They voted for change and were ignored when they expressed their views and quite strongly. And when they complain, they are ridiculed. And now they are getting really angry. And the powers-that-be are trying to figure out how to play them for their own ends."
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/10/modern-economics-money-masters-and.html
Bravo! Good quote! :+1:
Here's what my favorite blogger had to say this morning:
Occupy Everything
By James Howard Kunstler
on October 10, 2011 9:17 AM
' "Recession Officially Over," The New York Times' lead headline declared around 7 o'clock this morning. (Watch: they'll change it.) That was Part A. Part B said, "US Incomes Kept Falling." Welcome to What-The-F*** Nation. I suppose if you include the cost of things like the number of auto accident victims transported by EMT squads as part of your Gross Domestic Product such contradictions to reality are possible...
I dropped in on the Occupy Wall Street crowd down in Zuccotti Park last Thursday. It was like 1968 all over again, except there was no weed wafting on the breeze (another WTF?). The Boomer-owned-and-operated media was complaining about them all week. They were "coddled trust-funders" (an odd accusation made by people whose college enrollment status got them a draft deferment, back when college cost $500 a year). Then there was the persistent nagging over the "lack of an agenda," as if the US Department of Energy, or the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs was doing a whole lot better.
This is the funniest part to me: that leaders of a nation incapable of constructing a coherent consensus about reality can accuse its youth of not having a clear program.... '
(Emphasis mine. Link to complete article: http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/10/occupy-everything.html)
How does one respond to a government that is chaotic and irrational? Certainly not with logic and a clear agenda written up in neat outline form. That would be like trying to reason with a drunk - a total waste of time and energy.
Catwoman, probably a good idea to stop calling it the "obama economy" since I so clearly demonstrated that the situation of the economy wasn't caused by him, but rather by forces that were rolling well before he got into office. blaming the wrong source doesn't help.
the fact that PPACA has already had an impact on your family business, I assume is based on perceptions and forecasting -- something that my business is really quite in the throws of as well. Except that I'm not subject to PPACA here.
Instead, I'm subject to three levels of tax: Goods and Services Tax -- which is 15% of everything; Income tax -- I'm currently not earning enough to pay this; and ACC levy, which is our health care system here.
Our biggest issue is whether or not the minimum wage will go up. Why?
Because of budgeting and forecasting.
See, for us, we are in the position where we need to hire 3 or so part-time people. The kind of work is part-time work, so they have to be part timers. I can't pay someone to do 8 solid hours of non-stop massage per day, plus, I don't have the demand for that at this point anyway. Most people tap out at 5 massages per day, and they tend to be 1.5 hrs apart, and we are going to pay them an hourly rate, starting with the base of minimum wage and then a profit sharing/percentage.
So, the issues facing us is what changes to the ACC levy process will impact us when we take on 1.5 employees, whether or not minimum wages goes up, and from there, what the situation is on us for income/GST taxes when we are paying them. We also know that we have to budget for holiday pay, and something else that I can't name off the top of my head because I just finished my invoicing and I'm a bit brain-fuzzed.
I'd like to hire 3 people part time (1.5 people, according to employment numbers), but if the minimum wages goes up and the ACC levy goes up, then I am restricted by my budget back down to 1 employee (or two part time people, as it were).
So, I can understand how if you are foreseeing that PPACA will impact your business financially such that you would have to cut employees, I do get it.
But that being said, living in a place with universal health care (and no insurance companies -- i mean, you can buy health insurance, but most people don't because you really don't need it here), I have to say that I'd rather pay the levies and higher (GST) taxes. Income tax is rather funny, in that you pay about 10% on the first 14k, and then 17.5% on the next part up to $48k, and then after that, you pay 30%. Here (http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html) is an example you can check out online. I can't quite figure out if this is higher or lower than in the US or what, but there you go. I just did finish my invoicing, after all.
Anyway, We pay 15% tax on everything. We pay income tax. And we pay ACC levy.
And while the economy is still in a recession (as far as I understand it), it is overall a low-corruption government, has a large middle class that seems to be doing ok (everyone is pretty frugal here really), and is overall pretty stable. People aren't worried about getting sick. . . they take their kids to doctors -- or themselves -- as needed. And, it's all covered. That's just how it is here.
People here also travel, a lot, and have a lot of good parties, and seem to have enough expendable income on average that my business is doing well. It's a holistic health center, and we offer yoga, acupuncture (which is part of ACC treatment plans), physiotherapy, and several kinds of energy healing and massage. Since our business is growing (hence I need to hire people), it seems to me that we are overall doing well.
Though, arguably, this is not in the US.
But it points to how looking at what you have to spend and making arrangements for it is part of the equation. The government's policies will always change -- sometimes to your benefit and sometimes not -- and your best bet is to plan the best you can with the information that you have and how you feel about what is coming.
We are heading into elections here, too, which could mean a complete flip in the tax situation here. The labour party has an interesting platform about increasing minimum wage and cutting GST on essentials like power, fruits and veggies, and so on. Green has another plan where GST is cut in some places, and minimum wage stays the same, but the income tax cuts -- which apparently only positively effected the wealthiest and negatively affected the poorest -- would be increased again.
even so, i'm doing my planning to budget in order to hire people, because i need people to do the jobs and meet the demand.
Lainey, do you actually know anyone who owns a small business? I do - am married to one and the reality is quite different than the article you linked. This is a firm that typically employs 35 to 40 people, they have significantly downsized...This is a direct result of the Obama economy and threat of Obama care.
Of course I know business owners. The article surveys many business owners, and because you differ with their conclusion puts you in the minority, not me.
and Zoebird is right - if you want to call this the "Obama economy" then you have to spell out what exactly happened after January 2009 that means he's responsible for job stagnation. "The threat of" and "what might happen" are non-starters.
No one in business has a crystal ball. Businesses hire when demand is there. If demand was there, any vague "what ifs" are irrelevant.
Maxamillion
10-11-11, 12:19pm
Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.
ApatheticNoMore
10-11-11, 12:20pm
If you want to call this the "Obama economy" then you have to spell out what exactly happened after January 2009 that means he's responsible for job stagnation. "The threat of" and "what might happen" are non-starters.
The problem making this argument is most of Obamas policies are Bush 2.0. The exception: the healthcare plan. Really what else? Taxes? The Bush tax cuts were kept AND more tax cuts were passed (payroll tax cuts)! Obamas so called "jobs bill" is half tax cuts (and a trade bill is snuck into it as well). That more taxes should be expected given the kind of deficits we are running well yes, eventually, there is that.
Regulations? What specifically? Clean air regulations were stopped. The Obama administration failed to do the kind of adequate regulation that would have prevented the gulf oil spill (this is documented). And we're going to have a pipeline running over the major aquefier for the middle of the country. That can not end well. Financial regulation? Well there was the bank regulatory bill which may have caused some chaos for sure (I saw it first hand and was working for a company that was almost put out of business by it - ironically the company I was working for was NOT a big bank and not in ANY WAY part of that which contributed to the financial crisis!), but AT THE SAME time this same regulation almost certainly fails to regulate the big banks enough, so that the exact same banking crisis can and probably will happen again. Glass Stegal is certainly nowhere to be seen.
Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.
If you have a link, could you share it? Thanks.
ApatheticNoMore
10-11-11, 12:33pm
That's messed up. I went to see the local protestors. Very peaceful lot (and not a single one smelled bad). When they get cracked down on (and I think at the level to which the police state has progressed there is a chance they will be eventually), believe you are seeing tyrany. Still I hardly think the danger is great enough that a protest should be avoided if that's where you think you should be!
Last night police descended on one of the Occupy Boston camps. I saw some rather disturbing footage on Youtube where the cops were assaulting war veterans that were there with the protest. Cops throwing the American flag on the ground and trampling it. Seems fitting symbolism.
This seems a bit overblown to me. It's fairly apparent that the Occupy Boston group was trying to provoke the police into arresting them. They were warned for several hours that they would need to leave the area they had moved to and when the police finally came to move them back to their permitted area a veterans group, complete with American flags, stepped between the police and the squatters to prevent their being escorted away.
There may be times when civil disobedience is called for, I don't think this was one of them.
mtnlaurel
10-11-11, 12:43pm
The problem making this argument is most of Obamas policies are Bush 2.0. The exception: the healthcare plan. Really what else? Taxes? The Bush tax cuts were kept AND more tax cuts were passed (payroll tax cuts)! Obamas so called "jobs bill" is half tax cuts (and a trade bill is snuck into it as well). That more taxes should be expected given the kind of deficits we are running well yes, eventually, there is that.
Regulations? What specifically? Clean air regulations were stopped. The Obama administration failed to do the kind of adequate regulation that would have prevented the gulf oil spill (this is documented). And we're going to have a pipeline running over the major aquefier for the middle of the country. That can not end well. Financial regulation? Well there was the bank regulatory bill which may have caused some chaos for sure (I saw it first hand and was working for a company that was almost put out of business by it - ironically the company I was working for was NOT a big bank and not in ANY WAY part of that which contributed to the financial crisis!), but AT THE SAME time this same regulation almost certainly fails to regulate the big banks enough, so that the exact same banking crisis can and probably will happen again. Glass Stegal is certainly nowhere to be seen.
Seriously, my husband and I marvel at this almost weekly now as Obama is demonized more and more and more by far right. We sit there and say -- 'hey, he's co-opted a vast majority of YOUR ideas!'
There is plenty of meat on the bone for Repub leaders sit at negotiating table and gnaw on. Yet, here they go again - walking away, throwing their hands up in disgust.
If there are any spoiled brats that Catwoman alluded to a few pages back in this whole scene - I would say it's the Repub leadership.
Seriously, my husband and I marvel at this almost weekly now as Obama is demonized more and more and more by far right. We sit there and say -- 'hey, he's co-opted a vast majority of YOUR ideas!'
There is plenty of meat on the bone for Repub leaders sit at negotiating table and gnaw on. Yet, here they go again - walking away, throwing their hands up in disgust.
If there are any spoiled brats that Catwoman alluded to a few pages back in this whole scene - I would say it's the Repub leadership.
If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.
I would put Obama right of center (based on his actions, I'd put him to the right of Reagan)- but he's characterized over and over that he is too far left for any sensible person to ever agree with. And I think it sticks with a lot of people. Which effectively discards anything that may truly be leftist.
mtnlaurel
10-11-11, 1:14pm
If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.
I would put Obama right of center (based on his actions, I'd put him to the right of Reagan)- but he's characterized over and over that he is too far left for any sensible person to ever agree with. And I think it sticks with a lot of people. Which effectively discards anything that may truly be leftist.
Here's where I get very angered though - representatives are elected to GOVERN not just 'strategize'.
Of course, strategy is involved in keeping your party in power --- but at the expense of the future of the United States and the American people? -- when they could be putting their energies toward solving problems TODAY.
I really don't see how they can sleep at night taking that big of a gamble with the future of our country.
Re: Occupy Boston 100 protestor arrested last night.
First, it should be noted that OccupyBoston, due to size, had two camps. Both camps are in public parks -- as are all the occupy movements -- where public citizens have a right to be and a right to assemble.
Second, it is true that the city via the police told assembled protestors to disperse and return to the single camp (Dewey). But, they had no authority to do this, other than the city demanding it. The park is an open, public park where people may occupy and protest, just as they are in the other public park.
Thus, OccupyBoston made the decision to maintain the occupation as an act of civil disobedience against this demand, which has no legal force other than asking them to leave.
To support this occupation, Veterans for Peace came and encircled the camp, and all of the protestors remained nonviolent.
Police showed up in riot gear, with white batons (the long thin ones), at 2 am, gave the encampment a 5 minute warning, and then arrested anyone in the park. They also arrested several legal observers (which is illegal), as well as paramedics and others there to help with injuries.
Here's (http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-solidarity-100-arrested-occupy-boston/) an article via occupywallst.org. OccupyBoston has a page of video and images here (http://occupyboston.com/2011/10/11/images-from-the-takedown/).
This act of civil disobedience is wholly justified. If the government just says tomorrow "all occupiers go home?" what -- everyone is supposed to just go home? The point of this assembly is to exercise democratic rights to assembly and speech. If the government illegaly and forceably removes people for not just going home when they say so -- for doing what is our right to do?
then what?
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e7QD_5k) a video showing the police giving the five minute warning and how the people are continuing to stand. It shows the first arrests of the Veterans for Peace.
the police claim it is "unlawful assembly" even though it is public land, managed by the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The protestors had been given the OK from RKG to utilize the park, so long as there was no destruction to art or flowers.
Just because they call it something, doesn't meant it IS something.
So, yes, this was an act of civil disobedience. Also, the boston globe reports here (http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/boston-mayor-says-sympathizes-with-protesters-but-they-can-tie-the-city/GFmOU1qwApiGhBNsNSzMIL/index.html).
If the strategy is trying to redefine what the "far left" is, and thereby shift the center to the right, I think they are being effective.
If we define the center as a median point (half falling on either side) then I would probably agree that the center has shifted right in the past several years. I think its always been a pendulum swinging one way then back the other over the course of a generation or so. OTOH, the far extremes of either side seem to be even farther out and farther from the proverbial center than they were many years ago.
Yossarian
10-11-11, 4:01pm
If the government illegaly and forceably removes people
Civil disobedience doesn't make you exempt from arrest, does it? Why were the arrests illegal?
If we define the center as a median point (half falling on either side) then I would probably agree that the center has shifted right in the past several years. I think its always been a pendulum swinging one way then back the other over the course of a generation or so. OTOH, the far extremes of either side seem to be even farther out and farther from the proverbial center than they were many years ago.
I agree the claims of further extremes are more active (although I think it's directed mostly at the left) - but in actual practice?
If Obama is the most extreme example of "socialist" they can come up with, we have shifted very far to the right indeed.
Civil disobedience doesn't make you exempt from arrest; usually it puts you right in the way of the arrest.
I suppose when I spoke, I was really speaking to the charge -- unlawful assembly -- for which there wasn't evidence.
The city simply demanded that they vacate the park, and gave them notice, BUT as the protestors has two rights to be there (1. it was a public space with no direct laws governing when it can be occupied, which usually have to be posted; and 2. permission from the management of the park so long as they didn't harm flowers, artworks, and related elements managed by the Rose Kennedy Greenway Trust), it wasn't an unlawful assembly.
It was civil disobedience that they didn't disperse, and it might also be noted that the individual protestors are deciding HOW they want to be arrested -- by either going forward and being arrested peacefully, or going limp or "resisting arrest." There's actually a really good wiki article on this topic.
Now, from here, it's a question of the charges. In this case, the 129 people were arrested for unlawful assembly, which is a pretty hefty charge, but most have been moved down to small misdemeanors with smaller fines. I think that only 9 or 10 people remain in custody at this time, just simply waiting to go through their court. The local DA mostly cut a massive deal for everyone, since that makes it go quickly.
----
Also, OccupySeattle has just been going through a form of "wearing down" or "annoyance" from the police. First, they were told no tents, and then no temporary or pop up structures, and then no umbrellas. They are allowed tarps over their sleeping bags/bodies.
Last night, several police cars parked near protestors with lights on (headlights and flashing) and every 10-15 minutes or so asked them to disperse, saying that it was trespass to camp there overnight. Likewise, in this park, there are no posted rules about when the park is open, and they have been there for two weeks now.
Since the protestors realized that this was simply a method to get them to avoid sleep, it was agreed that some would sleep, while the others blocked the lights from the police cars and sang a happy song. It is said that they will switch shifts after several hours of sleep.
Reports on the ground say that the police seem bored with having to do it, and the mayor is officially stating that he is sympathetic with the protestors. This means that the police were somehow acting independently of the mayor, but the whole situation is convoluted there, and I can't figure out what is rumor and what is fact from what is being reported (from inside and out).
---
Most of the Occupy movements across the world (many starting this weekend, such as OccupyWellington) are able to peacefully maintain themselves.
---
Occupy Wall St is doing a march today, so it's going to be interesting to see what comes of that -- because i'm sure they don't have permits for these marches. As it has the potential to cause a real problem for the city, I would expect arrests to be made in this one as well.
Again, as an act of civil disobedience, though it will probably get tossed as a misdemeanor charge.
---
there are rumors that occupyDallas and StLouis also had some stuff happen overnight, but no word yet on whether or what.
Here' (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/10/we-are-the-99/)s another good compilation review from Elephant Journal regarding the movement as it is coalescing. There is video of veterans and why they are involved; there is the SNL skit too, and there are several statements by an economist, roosevelt, and a veteran in retirement. There's also a link off to ele-journal's "round up" of the best of OWS.
A great report on what OWS is about, how it got started, and how people are organizing it. . . on Democracy Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYSVy5COwS0&feature=player_embedded#!). (from sept 19, 2011)
this also speaks to debt cancellation as well -- how it's existed in the past, why, and how it is economically beneficial.
Here's the Cause (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_P3pxze5w&feature=player_embedded#!).
Yossarian
10-11-11, 6:40pm
Here's the Cause (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_P3pxze5w&feature=player_embedded#!).
Hmmm. Lot's of ranting, no solutions. Actually, not even a clear statement of the problem.
Yossarian
10-11-11, 6:43pm
this also speaks to debt cancellation as well -- how it's existed in the past, why, and how it is economically beneficial.
You can't be serious. If you are, please loan me some money today!
You obviously haven't watched it. There's a long history of debt cancellation, and if you are completely ignorant about it, that's what the bank bailout WAS. so, if banks can do it, and governments can do it between each other, why not for the poor? And, it's been done in the past, so why not now? This was in the Democracy Now piece -- which apparently you didn't watch.
And right now, solutions aren't really the situation. It's coming together and identifying and speaking about the problem. Solutions -- real solutions -- will arise in due time. That's the way it works. This is also described in the Democracy Now piece.
People are coming together and talking. They are going to general assembly meetings, and talking about possible solutions.
The other thing that everyone in the movement is acknowledging is that we are all different. We have different opinions about HOW it should be done, what the solution will be. So, we are trying to figure that out together -- without saying this has to be the one solution, or that has to be the one solution.
It's part of the point. It's now about political parties, or who is right, or even HOW to do things.
But, hey, if you aren't angry about the current situation, or if you think everything is fine, then feel free.
And FWIW, i do "loan" people money all the time. And between us, we can cancel debt, renegotiate that debt, or pay it back or what have you. I often forgive debts of others, don't you? And if I can't, then I'll do what I can to work with them and make it happen for/with them.
This is what governments do, this is what corporations do, and this is what the bail out did for bank debts!
But for some reason, it's not possible for corporations and government to forgive the debts of the poor? it's only allowed if the government or rich banks do it between each other, or if government and banks do it?
Yossarian
10-11-11, 7:43pm
that's what the bank bailout WAS
Can you explain that? It seems nonsensical. The bank bailout was an injection of capital to allow banks to stay solvent and pay their debts.
I live simply. I borrowed money, paid it back, and now try to save and invest. Any debt forgiveness would have to come at my expense as a shareholder or depositor in a bank. People who borrowed the money should pay it back.
I also live simply, and i am paying back whatever I have borrowed. That being said, I have the income to do so, and for those who do not, and do nt have the ability to file for bankruptcy over them (eg, student loans).
If you look up some research on what TARP does with liquid assets that have no fixed value, and how they value them and buy/sell them back to banks (or not, as they simply, eventually, disappear if they are not purchased, or devalue out of existence), then you discover that it was, in fact, a form of debt forgiveness.
Debt forgiveness happens all the time without economic collapse -- when it happens between governments and banks. It's not just the debt itself (the easiest transaction you describe), but what they do with debt that matters. THAT is part of this situation, as debt is a "liquid asset" that doesn't have a defined value once it's been used as collateral itself.
So, i recommend doing some research on it.
An "injection of capital" is just free money by another name. Why should any business be bailed out for making bad business decisions? In banking, that's what bad loans are. When a business makes bad decisions, it gets restructured. Usually the equity is wiped out, the executives are fired and its creditors become the new equity. In the banking sector, there can be restructurings where the good assets are placed in a viable bank and the bad ones in a "bad bank". There are markets for each.
Sweden had no problem restructuring its banks in the early 1990s after its real estate bubble. Japan had the same problem and tried to bury it. Sweden had some quick pain and recovered. Japan still has essentially the same problem two decades later.
This time is NOT different. The world would not end if the banks were restructured and their bad debts written off. This is the BIG LIE told by Wall Street and the leaders of both our parties; and we all know from J. Goebbels that BIG LIES are easier to put over on a public than small ones. In fact, restructuring the banks and making them recognize their losses, and fail if necessary, is the only way out of this mess. No amount of stimulus, tax cuts or any other government action will have any chance of working until this is done. Just ask Japan -- they already tried all this stuff.
OWS has gone to the right place -- bypass the government, and go after the people who control the government.
.....OWS has gone to the right place -- bypass the government, and go after the people who control the government.
And do what with them?
Mostly, the idea is to keep them separate from government. that's the primary thing coming out of the GA's. how? there are lots of ideas.
but, part of it is just wanting to be back in government, and doing grass roots work -- something that has started in europe, and so on. Seriously, watch the Democracy Now piece; it explains everything.
Yossarian
10-11-11, 9:39pm
If you look up some research on what TARP does with liquid assets that have no fixed value, and how they value them and buy/sell them back to banks (or not, as they simply, eventually, disappear if they are not purchased, or devalue out of existence), then you discover that it was, in fact, a form of debt forgiveness.
Can you provide a citation for this? I can't follow what you are trying to say.
Do you know how the CPP works?
Yossarian
10-11-11, 9:48pm
An "injection of capital" is just free money by another name. Why should any business be bailed out for making bad business decisions?
Well, it's not quite free, it has to be paid back if the bank is able. Much of the money has been in fact paid back already.
See: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_TARP_20100930.html
As for why, you'd have to ask the politicians that supported it.
East River,
seeing as i am very busy today, and not your google monkey (i've already google-monkey'ed quite enough on this thread), you can look it up for yourself.
and yes, I do understand how CPP works.
Yossarian
10-11-11, 10:38pm
and yes, I do understand how CPP works.
Can anyone show me a calculation of how much the govt has lost purchasing disappearing toxic assets under TARP
ERG,
I'm really not interested in googling right now. put up your own links to demonstrate your points.
That being said, google coughed up this: NYTs articles (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/bailout_plan/index.html).
And included is this one: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/for-troubled-assets-negotiations-begin/?ref=bailoutplan
I'm tired now, honestly.
I'm ok if people aren't into this movement, or change, or what is going on. I'm ok if people still want to talk about who is to blame for what, and how it all works or doesn't.
But at the end of the day, I see this as an opportnity for broad social change, and that's what i'm supporting i this movement.
ApatheticNoMore
10-11-11, 11:32pm
Broad social change might be good. Wholesale debt forgiveness for everyone would just be nutty. But then I can't actually believe anyone is seriously proposing it anyway, so arguing against such an idea is probably a waste of time.
I mean think of what it would mean, everyone with a home loan would get a free house, meanwhile renters would keep having to pay rent until they die (which is kind of what they planned to do anyway but ...). Would the owner with a loan out on an apartment get debt forgiveness and his tenants nothing? Keep in mind one reason why people rent is they CAN'T AFFORD to buy. Who do you think the 99% really are? Homeowners are already a few income brackets above renters anyway and they are already strongly favored by all public policy (talk about people who are NOT paying their fair share of taxes!).
College debt is a sticky wicket, but if it was totally forgiven does it mean that everyone else is also entitled to a free college education going forward? Shouldn't they be out of fairness? Why only people who went to college within a specific period of time and financed it via debt? Arguing that the public should adequately fund colleges (yes by raising taxes if need be) is one thing, as such college classes are readily available to all (when they aren't being cut!) and a public benefit.
If it's true the home debtors could have all had free houses for the cost of bank bailouts, I'd have to side wtih them over the banks if I had to choose. The social effects of having a free middle class who owed noone might be more positive than just having a bunch of rich bankers. Depends on how they used their freedom I guess. They should TAKE IT ALL IN FREE TIME!!! But they could just use it in less than socially positive ways, like buy a second house with the new surplus, rent it out to unliberated renter slaves (who probably paid for the bailout).
Dragline
10-11-11, 11:46pm
"And do what with them?" Some individuals should be prosecuted for acts of fraud. Here's a typical one of many: http://dailybail.com/home/the-spectacular-fall-of-lehman-cfo-erin-callan-so-many-lies.html. She's hiding out at a beautiful spread in Long Island now. Care to defend this person? Your tax dollars at work.
All banks should have to comply with pre-2008 accounting standards, under which we will learn that most are essentially insolvent and subject to seizure by the FDIC. And no support should be offered for bad investments in European banks or countries. Or do you enjoy continuing to fund failure? Do you think buying AIG was a good deal for the taxpayers and paying its creditors 100 cents on the dollar was a good deal? How about all the toxic crap shuffled over to Fannie and Freddie, which we now own too? Who were their biggest creditors? A few of them like BAC have finally been sued for fraud recently, but its been a very meager and half-hearted effort. One of the settlements with Citibank in an earlier case was so weak that the judge in charge of the case rejected it as too grossly in favor of the bank. How does that happen?
But the bigger question is the prospective one -- what happens when these banks fail again (even under current accounting standards), which is happening right now as Europe goes down the toilet? Will they be restructured or bailed out? Will we continue to reward failure at the highest level? Neither party is listening and both are being paid. And we will hear the BIG LIE again -- "we have to pay these people/institutions off or the world will end."
I also think people need to study what debt relief is, what forms it takes, and why the student loan bit is SUCH a mess. wikipedia has a nice article, basic, but nice.
and this is taken from the article:
In US tax law, debt forgiven is treated as income, as it reduces a liability, increasing the taxpayer's net worth. In the context of the bursting of the United States housing bubble, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 provides that debt forgiven on a primary residence is not treated as income, for debts forgiven in the 3-year period 2007–2009. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extended this by 3 years to the 6-year period 2007–2012.
and here's a bit about that act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Forgiveness_Debt_Relief_Act_of_2007)
In bankruptcy and foreclosure, debt often is and can be forgiven between creditors and private citizens.
Heck, I would be happy if student loans were able to be managed via bankruptcy. That alone would make me happy. I'm no where near filing for it, but I can imagine that many people are. And if they could get that debt restructured or forgiven, then heck yeah, let it happen.
Yossarian
10-12-11, 6:51am
ERG,
I'm really not interested in googling right now. put up your own links to demonstrate your points.
That being said, google coughed up this: NYTs articles (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/bailout_plan/index.html).
And included is this one: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/for-troubled-assets-negotiations-begin/?ref=bailoutplan
Those don't support your contention.
Yossarian
10-12-11, 10:54am
This is what they should be talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/the-depression-if-only-things-were-that-good.html
Quit fighting over how to divide a shrinking pie and foucs on making more pie.
Theme song for OWS protestors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4
This is what they should be talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/sunday-review/the-depression-if-only-things-were-that-good.html
Quit fighting over how to divide a shrinking pie and foucs on making more pie.
More pie! Yes.
More pie! Yes.
"Let's make the pie higher."
GWB
my favorite quote is that there aren't any demands, because they are not expecting anyone else to solve this problem. they are striving to solve it themselves.
and i think they're trying to move away from pie, and move into cakes, cookies, all manner of casseroles, and many raw salads and cooked salads as well. you know, to extend the food analogy.
But the bigger question is the prospective one -- what happens when these banks fail again (even under current accounting standards), which is happening right now as Europe goes down the toilet? Will they be restructured or bailed out? Will we continue to reward failure at the highest level? Neither party is listening and both are being paid. And we will hear the BIG LIE again -- "we have to pay these people/institutions off or the world will end."
It looks like another "Too Big To Fail" failure is looming on the horizon:
Five Banks Account For 96% Of The $250 Trillion In Outstanding US Derivative Exposure; Is Morgan Stanley Sitting On An FX Derivative Time Bomb?
"The latest quarterly report from the Office Of the Currency Comptroller is out and as usual it presents in a crisp, clear and very much glaring format the fact that the top 4 banks in the US now account for a massively disproportionate amount of the derivative risk in the financial system. Specifically, of the $250 trillion in gross notional amount of derivative contracts outstanding (consisting of Interest Rate, FX, Equity Contracts, Commodity and CDS) among the Top 25 commercial banks (a number that swells to $333 trillion when looking at the Top 25 Bank Holding Companies), a mere 5 banks (and really 4) account for 95.9% of all derivative exposure (HSBC replaced Wells as the Top 5th bank, which at $3.9 trillion in derivative exposure is a distant place from #4 Goldman with $47.7 trillion)." -Zero Hedge
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/Five-Banks
It looks like another "Too Big To Fail" failure is looming on the horizon:
LINK: http://tinyurl.com/Five-Banks
It sounds like we're moving from "too big to fail" to "too big to save".
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/business/in-private-conversation-wall-street-is-more-critical-of-protesters.html
A member of the 1% managed to very succinctly spell out two of the reasons the protests are happening. What a moron.
said one longtime money manager. "Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well."
...He added that he was disappointed that members of Congress from New York, especially Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, had not come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns. "They need to understand who their constituency is," he said.
Offered here just for a little different perspective...
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_backlash/?npt=NP1&hpt=hp_t2
Seems like backlash was imminent toward any group claiming to represent 99% of us.
flowerseverywhere
10-26-11, 2:06pm
[QUOTE=Zoebird;46598
Heck, I would be happy if student loans were able to be managed via bankruptcy. That alone would make me happy. I'm no where near filing for it, but I can imagine that many people are. And if they could get that debt restructured or forgiven, then heck yeah, let it happen.[/QUOTE]
did you see today that Obama has introduced a program to help with student debt? You still have to pay it back but it can now be refinanced to a lower rate and payments can be lower (but I imagine longer). I wish people were more educated about student debt. At least with a house you can live in it. Several nieces and nephews of mine are taking on debt with non specific majors that will not get them employed today. I feel very bad but the parents want them in expensive schools. Very different than studying for a specific profession like pharmacy or medicine where you have a good chance at making a very good living.
the crazy thing about debt is that the large majority of people are in debt by choice. They chose to buy a house, they chose to take school loans, or chose to run up a credit card thinking in the future they could pay it off, not expecting the economy to go crazy. Some people have had illness, or were left by a spouse with kids to raise, or got laid off, lots of reasons not to be able to pay it back. But a rethinking of our attitude towards debt, and just how evil it is would do the world a lot of good. because as we are learning now, you never know.
Despite high unemployment today I stopped at the big grocery store near all the big box stores and the parking lots were full. The big chain bookstore had a ton of cars (library books are free) and the chain restaurants had a waiting line for lunch. You can make a simple lunch for way less than a restaurant serving and probably healthier. Just nuts.
ApatheticNoMore
10-26-11, 2:12pm
So what? Can be among the 53% paying taxes and still support the thrust of occupy wall street (support specific proposals, well those are rather lacking :)). Besides being among the 53% paying tax is all or nothing thing right. It can't possibly be the case that sometimes you pay boatloads of taxes and other times you might even be unemployed and not paying any. No .... that could NEVER happen!
Besides there's this whole belief that occupy wall street wants government hand outs, when I think a lot of it is just about corruption, about money in politics, about if taxpayer money is to be spent on bailouts why is it all going to the banks, etc. Of course, a large part of the problem here is OWS own inability to define their agenda (which I think may be really positive in terms of what they are building - alternative institutions etc., but which will lead to everyone projecting whatever they want on you). So that, yea, it's all about people wanting handouts, that's what it's really about .... etc.
loans were able to be managed via bankruptcy. That alone would make me happy. I'm no where near filing for it, but I can imagine that many people are. And if they could get that debt restructured or forgiven, then heck yeah, let it happen.
Considering there are close to a TRILLION dollars of outstanding student loan debt - as well as similair amounts for credit card debt and housing debt - I can't see why any bank or govmint financial agency (Freddy, Frannie, VA, dept of education, etc..) should be required to forgive that debt. Restructure...yes. lower interest rates and change terms...yes. But forgive...no. Banks and financial institutions leant that money in good faith and should have a reasonable expection that the money - principal and interest - should be repaid. As private corporations their loyalty should be to their investors (people like you and me who give them our money with the same reasonable expectation of it being repaid with interest). Why should the shareholders be denied their portion of profits? Why should the bank fold and employees lose their jobs because of (forced?) debt forgiveness? Why should small businesses - and big businesses - be unable to borrow for capital improvements and growth (and yes, more jobs) because the bank doesn't get it's investments repaid? To forgive such huge amounts of money just because people "oops" made a mistake when borrowing it (usually based on personal greed IMHO - a bigger house, a better college, a nice car, investment properties, etc...). So I guess it just comes down to the fact that I don't see the financial institutions as the big bad greed machines that other's do. To me they are nothing more then financial clearing houses - I put money in, they lend money out - they take money in, then take money out to repay me -nothing more. If I don't agree with their investment strategies - say they are funding strip mining in Bolivia with child labor or are paying their CEO's exorbitant salaries rather then paying more in dividends to their investors - then I don't give them my money. I go to a non profit credit union. Simple. Now I can think of a million ways (OK a few ;-)!) that could help with all types of debt restructuring and pay off. Most are things that people don't seem willing to do. There is this expectation that if you have a business degree or law degree you will automaticly have a high paying job once you graduate. Back 20 years or so ago, most graduates started in the mail room or as law clerks after college. I have 2 degrees (paid for entirely by my GI Bill which covered it all because I went to a state university and got in-state tuition - and worked), plus 10 years of military service in a technical field that was very useful for my civilian job. But I still started at the bottom - earnoing $21K/year in 1990ish - and grew with the years and promotions. I think new grads need to think about starting small rather than hoping for a govmint or corporate bailout. But restructuring - yeah that's the way to go. If a person can only afford $25/month on their student loans, let them pay $25/month, but don't wipe out that debt. Can you tell I am anti-bankruptcy too :-)? Good for those instances when serious medical bills etc... arise, but otherwise I believe if you borrow money - whether from a bank or Mom and Dad - you should in some way shape or form pay it back.
Editted to add: Just saw that someone posted that the Obama Admin is looking into restructuring student loans (and I also heard they were going to try to do it with Govmint held mortgages even for those who are underwater). So - YAY!! I also wanted to add that, as a bit of a socialist (yeah I know I don't sound that way - cause I'm really a libertarian when it comes to the free market) I do feel we should have much more in corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy to fund things for ALL people like universal healthcare, education, social security, and the military. And UNLESS corporations can prove that they are creating jobs with their profits, then they should pay taxes. As far as high salaries, well this is a capitalist system and as a private corporation using non-taxpayer fund (pre & post bailout) they should be able to pay whatever they want.
Here's a little blurb about the proposed student loan restructuring:
"At nearly $1 trillion, federal and private student loans now exceed US credit-card debt, posing a formidable repayment burden for many borrowers at a time of near-double digit unemployment.
The plan, to be implemented by executive authority alone, allows some 1.6 million students to cap their loan payments at 10 percent of their discretionary income starting in 2012. It also forgives the balance of student loans after 20 years of payments. Current law allows students to limit loan payments to 15 percent of income, forgiving debt after 25 years of payments, though few students are aware of this option"
"In a related move, the US Department of Education, which now administers all federal education loans, is giving borrowers the option of consolidating federal and private loans at reduced rates.
“College graduates are entering one of the toughest job markets in recent memory, and we have a way to help them save money by consolidating their debt and capping their loan payments,” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “And we can do it at no cost to the taxpayer.”
Even before the official rollout of the program at a rally in Denver, House Republicans challenged how the president could move forward without congressional approval."
Offered here just for a little different perspective...
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_backlash/?npt=NP1&hpt=hp_t2
Seems like backlash was imminent toward any group claiming to represent 99% of us.
I read that - I thought it was interesting on a couple of points - assuming that only the 47% is identifying as the 99%, ignoring that many large corporations don't qualify as the 53% (paying income tax). And that the educational costs for their three kids to the public likely offset anything they've been paying in taxes.
And that people can work their tails off and still not make enough to pay anything substantial in income taxes.
I am looking up information on the proposal now.
I've already explained how debt forgiveness is a common practice several times -- between corporations and governments -- and also a part of our normal processes for citizens with bankruptcy courts. It's not a radical or new idea, I promise.
And, I also gave the example of how Saudi Arabia forgave billions of dollars in debt to Iraq and set up methods to help it's common people with debt forgiveness, interest free loans (for homes and marriages), and so on. This happened over the last few months. Saudi Arabia has yet to financially collapse, and I dare say it's in far better shape than Greece.
But aside from that, my point is that *student loan debt isn't special.*
All other forms of debt can be restructured and forgiven via the bankruptcy courts -- except student loans.
---
I've been reading about it at whitehouse.gov -- the new program. it looks decent, but it won't help me. My loans don't qualify.
---
In re: institutions should have a reasonable expectation of reimbursement, I agree.
but the risk is always with the creditor, not the debtor.
additionally, they are using the DEBT as collateral. It's a double-risk for them. When they do that, they make money on the debt because they sell it in bundles.
this can be seen in a couple of different ways -- corruption is one.
Another is that the bank is savvy. they don't have a whole lot of expectation of getting the money back, and so they are selling it in bundles to bring in income on that debt. They can then balance their books and/or show their profit on the debt. and if the debtor pays it back, then "all the better" because they got their up-front profit and their money back and the interest.
To me, that's a double dip.
Which is why i feel that it should be a part of the bankruptcy court, and i'm looking up the history to figure out WHY it isn't. (i want to know the theory).
catherine
10-26-11, 6:17pm
....but otherwise I believe if you borrow money - whether from a bank or Mom and Dad - you should in some way shape or form pay it back.
I agree with Spartana's whole post, but I would have taken up too much space if I had quoted it all.
I've been dumped on to the tune of over 100k in debt, and I've done some "stupid tax" to the tune of another 100k in debt and I am crawling my way through the debt snowball. I'll probably wind up living off of Social Security as a result when I retire (at 70), but I made my bed and now I have to lie in it.
My revenge on the Big Banks is to never support them again with loan interest.
I would expect a wave of monies being transferred to credit unions or community banks. Is this happening?
look, i agree in principle that it should be paid back.
but, i also look at the economic and social logic behind debt forgiveness -- something that happens all the time.
i am paying back my student loans, so it's not like i'm just trying to get out of paying it back, etc. I just think it's part of the inequality of the whole system. Banks and corporations can have massive debt forgiveness, governments can have massive debt forgiveness, and debt forgiveness exists for bankruptcy for everything BUT student loans.
why that?
and why is it that whenever someone brings up the benefits of debt forgiveness (particularly in an economic situation like the one we are in currently) it is taken as this person being immoral, or not wanting to pay back their debt, or whatever?
honestly, i have always faithfully paid back my bills, and I currently faithfully pay my student loan payment every single month, and i'm saving to pay it off in one lump sum (since it's a debt collection agency, and not a bank, so they can do different and weird things).
And, we currently don't take out any consumer debt nor did we start a mortgage and we do not plan on getting a mortgage when we are ready to buy a house (we plan to pay cash for it -- we are currently NOT saving for that, as we are saving up the lump sum to pay the student loan).
Seriously, I *get* debt. But I also *get* how debt forgiveness works and WHY it is beneficial socially and economically. I don't get why other people can't see that. When it's pretty common practice. It's a huge part of what happens in bankruptcy court!
we currently use a credit union in the US, and the local bank here in NZ (we couldn't find a credit union in NZ but are still looking).
catherine
10-26-11, 7:18pm
Zoebird:
I totally respect you and I hope you don't think I think of you as a deadbeat--I certainly don't! But I don't think that the fact that banks do it, and Wall Street does it, and bankruptcy courts do it is a good enough reason for me to dump my debt.
Also, I'm a small business person and I'm grateful that I'm in an industry where I'm pretty much guaranteed of being paid, but if I weren't, I would not like one of my clients to say "oh well--tough times. My bad, your loss."
One of my long-time favorite pieces of literature is The Diamond Necklace by de Maupessant. (maybe when I first read it and loved it was subconsciously foreseeing my own karma). The protagonists spent 10 years of their lives repaying something that they thought had value and did not. For me, the take-away of that story was not, "what a poor victim she was" or "how dumb was she"; it was that paying things back takes sacrifice and you do it no matter what.
I can understand, catherine, wanting to take responsibility for your debt.
I know that MOST people feel this way, even the ones filing for bankruptcy.
The issue for me is that certain kinds of debt aren't covered in bankruptcy, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. I can't get the logic.
Yossarian
10-26-11, 8:59pm
why that?
It makes loans affordable. 99% of students with loans are insolvent when they graduate. Everyone could declare bankruptcy. You'd have to charge 50% interest rates from the few that paid to cover the losses.
Why would a parent pay for college? Save the money, have the kid borrow, discharge the debt in bankruptcy, then give them the cash you saved on tuition to tide them over.
Yossarian
10-26-11, 9:11pm
additionally, they are using the DEBT as collateral. It's a double-risk for them. When they do that, they make money on the debt because they sell it in bundles.
this can be seen in a couple of different ways -- corruption is one.
Another is that the bank is savvy. they don't have a whole lot of expectation of getting the money back, and so they are selling it in bundles to bring in income on that debt. They can then balance their books and/or show their profit on the debt. and if the debtor pays it back, then "all the better" because they got their up-front profit and their money back and the interest.
To me, that's a double dip.
:help:
iris lily
10-26-11, 9:17pm
:help:
I was hoping you would step into this.
I'm not wrong on how banks operate. Here's a basic article (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5515864_do-banks-sell-loans-investors.html) about it.
Once a bank has sold a loan, it may use the funds it receives from investors to initiate new loans. In most cases, the bank simply accepts the funds from the investors and uses them to fund new loans, starting the entire process over again. In addition to helping the bank initiate new loans and perpetuate its operations, the ability of banks to sell loans to investors also helps relieve the bank's risk associated with lending money. If the borrower falls behind, the bank may pursue collection activities, but the investor who purchased the loan bears the loss in case of default. Since the bank gets its entire money, plus a portion of the interest rate, when it sells a loan, the bank also realizes an immediate profit from the sale.
I have stuff to say about this (positives and negatives of the system), btu I have to run my business now (teach yoga class!).
Foremost, a note on "morality" (or perceived morality) and loans.
Most people agree that loans are valuable, that they are important, and that people should only take out loans when necessary, only within their means, and pay back those loans. Most people who take out loans feel this way, as far as I can tell. This is the basic morality surrounding the debtor.
But few people talk about the morality surrounding the creditor. And there is a morality around it.
First, as has been said before, it is certainly reasonable for a creditor to assume and/or desire repayment of the loan. But, they have a responsibility in this process -- which is mitigating as much risk of loss on the loan as possible by giving a good loan to a good debtor.
A loan that is the right size for the person's income -- which plays into their capacity to pay -- with a long-view of the economy so that we can assume that the person will likely remain solvent. Another aspect, of course, is checking on the person's credit history (a form of credibility), and making sure that they tend to be good at paying back loans.
But, there is inherent risk in lending. It is an inherently risky investment because so much unforeseen things can happen -- from death to injury where there is a loss of job and thereby a loss of ability to pay, among countless others.
To mitigate these sorts of losses, interest is charged across all of the loans, and it is likely that the interest paid on a loan that is paid off will not only profit that loan, but mitigate losses for defaulted loans.
But it should be noted that lending is -- inherently -- a high risk endeavor. It is a high risk investment.
If a person puts money into a high risk investment, and the investment looses money, in general, who is to blame? Most of the time, people blame the INVESTOR, not the one (or whatever) in whom it was invested. The investor made a poor choice, and that's that. Sorry, but either better luck next time OR make a better investment next time.
The reason that I point this out is that so many people put the sole moral obligation around debts on debtors, forgetting entirely the whole process for the creditor. But, both are in a moral relationship with each other, and in my opinion, the person with the greater moral obligation is the creditor, not the debtor. This is, of course, my perception, but it bears out in leviticus, ancient greece and rome, and even in ancient chinese texts and trails right on up to the present day.
There has always been a strong admonishment against getting in debt. And if you do get in debt, pay it back! BUT, the risk (and the moral obligations of the risk) rest in the creditors, and this has long been the moral landscape around lending.
And this risk -- and the moral obligation inherent -- is most apparent in the long cultural history of debt restructuring and, yes, debt forgiveness (and also slavery, indentured servitude, debtors prison, etc, which things like bankruptcy court is meant to do away with because it is considered a social ill to have slavery, indentured servitude, and debtors prison, etc).
So this leads me to speaking about the situation of banks and investors who buy their loans.
---
I'm still looking into the history of student loans and the increased costs of education (as i think there's a "pork belly" element to it), the housing bubble was a massive situation of corporate (bank and investors) greed.
Bubbles are a real problem, and in particular have been since the 1970s when we went off the gold standard. I'm not calling for a reinstatement of the gold standard, but that bubbles seem to be more common since then than prior. While not fully cited, the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble) on bubbles is actually pretty decent.
One possible cause of bubbles is excessive monetary liquidity in the financial system, inducing lax or inappropriate lending standards by the banks, which asset markets are then caused to be vulnerable to volatile hyperinflation caused by short-term, leveraged speculation.[14] For example, Axel A. Weber, the former president of the Deutsche Bundesbank, has argued that "The past has shown that an overly generous provision of liquidity in global financial markets in connection with a very low level of interest rates promotes the formation of asset-price bubbles."[15]
my opinion on the matter (moral obligations) follows the "moral hazards" model of the problems of these sorts of situations, particularly how the banks are at fault (and hence "we are the 99%").
Moral hazard
Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. A person's belief that they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions is an essential aspect of rational behavior. An investor must balance the possibility of making a return on their investment with the risk of making a loss - the risk-return relationship. A moral hazard can occur when this relationship is interfered with, often via government policy. A recent example is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008 to provide a Government bailout for many financial and non-financial institutions who speculated in high-risk financial instruments during the housing boom condemned by a 2005 story in The Economist titled "The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history".[17] A historical example was intervention by the Dutch Parliament during the great Tulip Mania of 1637.
Other causes of perceived insulation from risk may derive from a given entity's predominance in a market relative to other players, and not from state intervention or market regulation. A firm - or several large firms acting in concert (see cartel, oligopoly and collusion) - with very large holdings and capital reserves could instigate a market bubble by investing heavily in a given asset, creating a relative scarcity which drives up that asset's price. Because of the signaling power of the large firm or group of colluding firms, the firm's smaller competitors will follow suit, similarly investing in the asset due to its price gains. However, in relation to the party instigating the bubble, these smaller competitors are insufficiently leveraged to withstand a similarly rapid decline in the asset’s price. When the large firm, cartel or de facto collusive body perceives a maximal peak has been reached in the traded asset's price, it can then proceed to rapidly sell or "dump" its holdings of this asset on the market, precipitating a price decline that forces its competitors into insolvency, bankruptcy or foreclosure. The large firm or cartel - which has intentionally leveraged itself to withstand the price decline it engineered - can then acquire the capital of its failing or devalued competitors at a low price as well as capture a greater market share (e.g., via a merger or acquisition which expands the dominant firm's distribution chain). If the bubble-instigating party is itself a lending institution, it can combine its knowledge of its borrowers’ leveraging positions with publicly available information on their stock holdings, and strategically shield or expose them to default.
(in both cases, emphasis is mine)
What is important to note is that it is the LENDING PRACTICES and HIGH RISK investing behaviors (plus some really nasty cartel stuff) that creates these sorts of problems.
I grant you, there are individual debtors involved, but the obligation of the lender is to make sure that the lending is as low risk as possible, to get the best return on investment.
So this takes me back to the first article taht I linked -- some posts back now i'm sure -- where in i emphasized
Since the bank gets it's entire money, plus a portion of the interest rate, when it sells a loan, the bank also realizes an immediate profit from the sale.
and then the investors hold the risk but the BANK is creating the bubble by choosing the lending practices (interest rates and to whom to lend and how).
When banks do this, they are no longer at risk if there is a default on the loan. The investor is at risk. And the investor purchased something that is high risk, and that may be even higher risk on account of the fact that the bank may be purposefully running or creating a bubble and then bursting it in order to bankrupt or absorb their competitors.
The truth is, Main Street has no control here (other than to not take out loans, and I think it's fair to assume that most people, when taking out a loan, do have the intention to pay it off -- though that may not be a cynical enough of a view). The banks and the government do -- they can mitigate their risks by selling the debts, and they can get their risks mitigated again by government intervention.
But who is really, truly at risk when this happens? Main street: jobs lost, debts still outstanding and mounting up, increased prices, etc etc etc.
I think that the bubble that occurred after the end of the gold standard in the 70s -- that massive commodities bubble -- only burst when the interest rates were raised to 14%.
While many argue that the benefit of low interest rates is an increase in investments, and therefore jobs, etc, there is a counterargument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rates).
The Austrian School of Economics sees higher rates as leading to greater investment in order to earn the interest to pay the depositors.
Higher rates encourage more saving and thus more investment and thus more jobs to increase production to increase profits.
Higher rates also discourage economically unproductive lending such as consumer credit and mortgage lending.
Also consumer credit tends to be used by consumers to buy imported products whereas business loans tend to be domestic and lead to more domestic job creation [and/or capital investment in machinery] in order to increase production to earn more profit.
(broken up for emphasis, mine)
This tells me that the lending processes change considerably, creating less high-risk debt and more appropriate investment-based lending that tends to move the economy forward over the long term, rather than the lowering interest rate which provides only short-term gains and perhaps creates these bubbles.
Yossarian
10-27-11, 8:10am
I have trouble keeping up with the volume so let me try to keep it simple.
additionally, they are using the DEBT as collateral. It's a double-risk for them. When they do that, they make money on the debt because they sell it in bundles.
When a bank borrows to make other loans, known as leverage, it does increase risk. Some of the banks in the housing bubble were leveraged 30 to 1, which left too little capital to cover losses. The rest is history. But that is separate from selling the assets, whether sold straight up or as securitizations. Selling the loans takes risk off the balance sheet. If they make other loans, then it's a wash. So the selling of loans doesn't do much change risk unless there is a residual guarantee, the real issue is the leverage and capital ratios.
Another is that the bank is savvy. they don't have a whole lot of expectation of getting the money back, and so they are selling it in bundles to bring in income on that debt. They can then balance their books and/or show their profit on the debt. and if the debtor pays it back, then "all the better" because they got their up-front profit and their money back and the interest. To me, that's a double dip.
A lender can make a profit on the sale a loan if the buyer is willing to pay a premium for the loan (and thus receive a lower interest rate). But once the loan is sold, the repayment of the loan goes to the buyer. It's not profit to the originating bank. So the originating bank can make a profit (or loss) selling the loan or servicing the loan and collecting payments, but I don't see the "double dip".
this can be seen in a couple of different ways -- corruption is one.
I still don't get where you are coming from on this one.
If you are looking to explain bubbles, think about what effect government policy has on the availability of the loans. In a pure free market you would see much better risk pricing and perhaps greater concern about getting repaid. We as a matter of social policy have intentionally diminished those market concerns to make student loans more affordable and available, but we should not be surprised when we find out we have financed billions of dollars of education for which there is not an economic basis.
But aside from that, my point is that *student loan debt isn't special.*
All other forms of debt can be restructured and forgiven via the bankruptcy courts -- except student loans.
I agree with you that student loan debt - really any debt that was voluntarily taken on (rather then due to unforseen circumstances like medical issues) - should be treated the same. The difference is that I personally don't agree with the current bankruptcy laws for voluntary debt - whesther it is a student loan, home loan, credit card debt, car loan, etc... I feel that bankruptcy (at least the kind where you can wipe out your debt obligation and retain ownership of your assets - including an education) should only be allowed when a person UNvoluntarily gets in to debt - like a medical situation. As far as choosing to voluntarily get into debt for other things, well... I feel that if you reaped the benefits of those loans (say an education, a home to live in, goods and services you bought on you CC, a car to drive) then you should be made to pay for them even if it's at only 10% of your disposable income or drawn out over your lifetime. I do firmly feel banks should lower interest rates and restructure loans to help enable people to pay them back but I don't believe people should be able to file for bankruptcy in those cases. Even for people who are unemployed or have no income, I feel that they should still, at some point in their lives, be made to pay back that debt. And just because the banks take most (all) of the risk when lending money I think that actually makes it even more important to repay since the level of risk - and the greater the debt forgiveness - the more it impacts not only investors, but other borowers as well. However I certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone who has high student loan debts and is unemployed. Same with houses that are underwater. And postponing repaying those debts would be great = especially if there was done in an interest-free way. But I did look at the OWS websites and have sort of obsessively watch everything - right and left as well as moderate - that I could find about it, and while of of it I agree with (especially getting business out of Healthcare) but much of ther debt relief they asked for I completely disagreed with. I think it's unfair to those who were abvle to pay off student loans and homes. Even people with paid off homes still lost up to 50% of their homes value - money they may have planned on in retirement. Should they be reimbursed for their student loans and the drop in their home values? My old house went up from $250k to over $500K then back to around $250K. If I had stayed there - and the banks or feds forgave debt for everyone in debt - then I ure as heck don't think they would pay me $250K because my house value dropped due to the economy. Although that would be sweet :-). I wonder if they would reimburse me for college too? OK only in my dreams I guess :-)!!
And Zoebird (and anyone) I don't feel that anyone who wants debt relief or forgiveness is morally wrong at all - heck if I was in the same situation and it was something that was available I would take advantage of it. I was just pointing out what "I' personally see wrong with the system - as well as reprocussions to allowing debt forgiveness on such alarge scale - heck even on a smal scale. I personally don't think corporations and govmint should be allowed debt forgiveness either but that greatly impacts who groups of people - thousand, millions - and is in a different ballpark IMHO.
It makes loans affordable. 99% of students with loans are insolvent when they graduate. Everyone could declare bankruptcy. You'd have to charge 50% interest rates from the few that paid to cover the losses.
Why would a parent pay for college? Save the money, have the kid borrow, discharge the debt in bankruptcy, then give them the cash you saved on tuition to tide them over.
Good point - something I didn't think about. May change my mind about my above statement. Maybe some compomise could be had - say no bankruptcy filing on student loan debt until at least 5 (10?) years after you graduate. Of course, after reading that curently you only need to pay 15% of your disposable income and the debt can be discharged after 25 years seems very reasonable to me and maybe doesn't need changing.
I also don't remember there ever being this many - or this high dollar amount - of student loans back 20 or more years ago. Back in my day, if you couldn't afford college you worked flipping burgers while attending community college at night for 2 years before attending an in-state university while living at home with your parents and still flipping burgerss. Seems a shift in attitude has occured for alot of younger people. Sort of a "I deserve the best of everything even though I can't afford it so will finance it". I see this not with just college, I see this with everything - clothes, activities, toys, etc.. Even with the kind of "first" cars they buy - or more likely Mom and Dad buy for them. I mean when I was a teenager in the mid 70's NO ONE drove a new car. No one had designer clothes and expensive toys. Everyone had a job after school flipping burgers. Guess the expectation to have the best - be it a luxury car or an Ivy Leaque education - isn't something kids are willing to delay gradification for or do with out. If it were me I would be out picking fruit to earn money for college - or to pay off college. And at $150/day according to an apple grower in Washington state who will lose his harvest (and cause an increase in apple prices as well as possiblily lose his small family farm) if he can't find more employees. That's about the 20th farmer I've heard about this last week in a similair situation. I feel like I want to rent a big bus and go to OWS with a banner that says "Picking not Protesting. Save the American family farmer. Save jobs for legal residents. Earn money for College." Not that anyone would join me. Gosh dern young whipper snappers :-)! Now I'll take my crumengeuony old self back to watching geritol commercials :-)! Of course if I had gone to an Ivy League college instead of joining the Coast Guard and then going to a state school on the GI Bill I might actually know how to spell - might :-)!
...
I also don't remember there ever being this many - or this high dollar amount - of student loans back 20 or more years ago. Back in my day, if you couldn't afford college you worked flipping burgers while attending community college at night for 2 years before attending an in-state university while living at home with your parents and still flipping burgerss. Seems a shift in attitude has occured for alot of younger people. Sort of a "I deserve the best of everything even though I can't afford it so will finance it". ...:-)!
My college education--four-year university degree spread over six years--cost me roughly the same amount as a one-year certification program I pursued at a community college thirty years later--$3000. I haven't analyzed it, but my take is that education is vastly more expensive than it used to be.
ApatheticNoMore
10-27-11, 2:07pm
It has an increased a lot and a lot of why it has increased is the ready availability of credit (there are probably other factors but that is a major one). I don't think loans were so readily available in the past. But as soon as easy credit has driven up the price of something, it becomes more and more necessary for any individual to take on credit to get anything. It is the same thing that drove housing, ok houses have been bought on credit for a long time, but never with so little in downpayment required.
Really a tragedy of the commons or what have you situation. We might ALL (except for some banksters mkay) be better off WITHOUT all this credit! But as soon as the majority are financing things on credit and driving up the price, it becomes more and more necessary for any given individual to do the same. Still there are some options to avoid or at least minimize it (state and community colleges), but even they are going away. :(
It has an increased a lot and a lot of why it has increased is the ready availability of credit (there are probably other factors but that is a major one). I don't think loans were so readily available in the past. But as soon as easy credit has driven up the price of something, it becomes more and more necessary for any individual to take on credit to get anything. It is the same thing that drove housing, ok houses have been bought on credit for a long time, but never with so little in downpayment required.
(
Good point. I wonder how many Ivy League and private universities would begin lowering their prices and offering more scholarships and grants if people fled in droves to public school or trade schools. And while yes the price of college has gone up in 30 years, salaries have too. Plus state schools - especially here in Calif and especially at community colleges - haven't risen by that much. I think one-unit of credit at a local community college is $22, and it was around $11 30 years ago. Where as salaries for flipping burgers has gone from about $2/hour to over $8/hour (minimum wage in Calif) on average and closer to $10/hour in reality. Calif Minimum wage when I got out of HS in 1975was $2/hour, 30 years ago is was $3.35/hour
In Calif State University: "As of 2010, students enrolled in more than six units per term pay $4,026 per year in tuition fees. For part-time students enrolled in six units per term or fewer, annual tuition is $2,334 (Non-residents pay an additional $248 or $372 per unit; the maximum additional cost is $11,160 per year). The cost of books and supplies varies by campus, but usually costs around $1,500."
"California community colleges, tuition runs $20 to $26 a unit, with most classes being three or four units. For a full-time student taking 12 units per semester, annual tuition at a California community college is approximately $480 as of the 2009-10 academic year (Non-residents pay an additional $140 to $199 per unit)."
That's not much more than it cost me 20-some odd years ago. Live at home with the parents, get 5 roomates at the dorm, buy used books and re-sell them, or ya... and flip burgers a few hours a week :-)!
I agree that there is a way to get an education and not get into debt. I wish that I'd taken that path (and not gone to law school at all).
How does a person "give back" an education? I can understand the house, consumer goods, car, etc -- but what? they're going to take the education out of my brain? my experience? Or is it that they just take the degree away (e.g., I can no longer claim that I have the degree?).
When a bank borrows to make other loans, known as leverage, it does increase risk. Some of the banks in the housing bubble were leveraged 30 to 1, which left too little capital to cover losses.
How is this not corrupt behavior? And why are banks considered special?
read many posts in this stream -- like spartana's. "any voluntary debt you take on should be paid back, no matter what."
but not banks? people who make big financial decisions that creates bubbles that impact the whole economy? really? they shouldn't have to pay it back, even if they are bankrupt or whatever?
and they get bailed out, but the bail outs have no trickle-down?
In a pure free market you would see much better risk pricing and perhaps greater concern about getting repaid.
Really? Because as far as I can tell, the US market has been freer in the last three decades than in decades prior, and that deregulation is married to this current situation, which was about corporate greed, not making good financial decisions for the businesses themselves and the economy as a whole. It was high risk behavior in the extreme. Certain people got really wealthy, but pretty much everyone else got screwed, right?
We as a matter of social policy have intentionally diminished those market concerns to make student loans more affordable and available, but we should not be surprised when we find out we have financed billions of dollars of education for which there is not an economic basis.
This is absolutely the case, and the same situation with keeping the interest rates low (at the Fed and such) -- which is demonstrated by the quote from the Austrian quote.
The Austrian School of Economics sees higher rates as leading to greater investment in order to earn the interest to pay the depositors.
Higher rates encourage more saving and thus more investment and thus more jobs to increase production to increase profits.
Higher rates also discourage economically unproductive lending such as consumer credit and mortgage lending.
Also consumer credit tends to be used by consumers to buy imported products whereas business loans tend to be domestic and lead to more domestic job creation [and/or capital investment in machinery] in order to increase production to earn more profit.
I think the question, too, depends on what we are considering a "free market."
Nearly every market has some regulation -- and I think that is important. The real risks to the free market (not of the free market, but TO it) is government incentivizing high-risk behaviors such as consumer, home, and student loans.
This creates a more realistic "free market."
And, i think it's well within the government's rights (assuming that a government bank is constitutional -- and the founding fathers debated about this extensively, but we'll assume that since we've had it since Hamilton, it's constitutional) to moderate interest rates in order to buffer inflation and stabilize the currency.
I would like to point out that i DO think about these things, so i'm slightly offended by the notion of "think about how. . ." in your last statement ERG. Yeah, i DO think about it.
it doesn't mean that we would agree on solutions. And I don't think we have to. But to assert that someone who disagrees with you ISN"T thinking about these issues is offensive.
Yossarian
10-28-11, 9:08am
How is this not corrupt behavior? And why are banks considered special?
If you have been reading as much as you say you know the answer. Banks were bailed out because people viewed the collateral consequences of allowing them to fail as likely to cause a lot of harm to the rest of society. That's why the Democrats voted for the bailout, that's why the EU is now bailing out their banks.
Because as far as I can tell, the US market has been freer in the last three decades than in decades prior, and that deregulation is married to this current situation, which was about corporate greed, not making good financial decisions for the businesses themselves and the economy as a whole. It was high risk behavior in the extreme. Certain people got really wealthy, but pretty much everyone else got screwed, right?
That's true for the broader credit crisis but not relevant to our discussion of student loans. The government meddles in the student loan market, which creates distortions. Like making credit available to people who may not otherwise get or be able to afford it. Which also means there are lot's of loans out there that have mispriced risk and may not be repaid.
JaneV2.0
10-28-11, 11:30am
I checked tuition for the University of Washington, and it was 8700 for in-state, and 25000 for out-of-state students, per year. Clearly, it's a lot harder to work your way through school these days. Hourly wages haven't gone up much, but tuitions have skyrocketed.
ApatheticNoMore
10-28-11, 1:04pm
The way you do it (and it used to be very possible before they starting cutting classes so much) is go to community college for the first 2 years, and then only go to a university for the remaining 2. Therefore even at $8700 a year for two years you don't go any more into debt than frankly many people do for a *CAR*! Now the Cal State system is cheaper than that in CA so it wouldn't even run you that much (the UC system can run as much as 12k a year but my understanding, and I could be wrong, is you need to look at the fine print there, that you only really pay that full amount if you have an income of 80k or so or more). So sure there are some working professionals it will hit but frankly they can manage it.
For years and years CA has had cheaper tuition than the rest of the nation. But the cut backs to classes are what is really hurting. It is NOT THE PRICE that is the problem! Community college are as Spartana pointed out DIRT CHEAP (frankly too cheap IMO, so cheap they aren't taken seriously by students), but this doesn't really mean that much if it is nearly impossible to get classes because of class cutbacks. And that is the real problem with college education around here! What can I say we should have raised taxes (and you can bet I pay those taxes!) and not cut back the colleges so much as was the governor's plan. It was blocked by state republicans. It's not that there aren't other problems (the salaries of administrators have gone through the roof and are indeed obscene), but cutting back college funding doesn't hurt the administrators, it only hurts anyone who wants a public college education! I mean we really had a plan that worked with the 3 tier college system (community colleges, cal states and UCs), but it can't survive an era of budgetary austerity. But CA really did have (in the past I'm afraid) a better state college setup than most of the rest of the nation.
Back in my day, if you couldn't afford college you worked flipping burgers while attending community college at night for 2 years before attending an in-state university while living at home with your parents and still flipping burgerss. Seems a shift in attitude has occured for alot of younger people.
I still think that attitude may come more from the parents than the younger set. IMO its time to admit that a lot of our kids are screwed because we blindly shoved them down a path that sometimes leads to nowhere. DW and I radically disagreed on this point for many, many years. Now that our two oldest kids have graduated college and we see their prospects she is even starting to question the conventional wisdom.
In my day, which was very close to the same day as your day Spartana, I couldn't afford college so I simply didn't go (did get in a few classes before all the bills started arriving). Not to toot my own horn, but between myself and my two brothers who both hold advanced degrees there is little doubt who has been able to accomplish the most. One of them is now terminally unemployed and milking every dime he can from the system while sending out the occasional resume for jobs that he is in no way qualified for. He went to a series of VERY expensive and exclusive schools (you would know the names). The other is in a position that he could have easily landed with a BA, much less a PhD, and lives a nice life primarily thanks to a never ending stream of handouts from his in-laws who want to make sure their grandchildren want for nothing. He went to a series of state colleges. I don't begrudge either of them anything, they've made their choices and live the life they chose, but all the years of education bear no fruit at all. I fear they are not isolated examples.
I still think that attitude may come more from the parents than the younger set. IMO its time to admit that a lot of our kids are screwed because we blindly shoved them down a path that sometimes leads to nowhere. DW and I radically disagreed on this point for many, many years. Now that our two oldest kids have graduated college and we see their prospects she is even starting to question the conventional wisdom.
In my day, which was very close to the same day as your day Spartana, I couldn't afford college so I simply didn't go (did get in a few classes before all the bills started arriving). Not to toot my own horn, but between myself and my two brothers who both hold advanced degrees there is little doubt who has been able to accomplish the most. One of them is now terminally unemployed and milking every dime he can from the system while sending out the occasional resume for jobs that he is in no way qualified for. He went to a series of VERY expensive and exclusive schools (you would know the names). The other is in a position that he could have easily landed with a BA, much less a PhD, and lives a nice life primarily thanks to a never ending stream of handouts from his in-laws who want to make sure their grandchildren want for nothing. He went to a series of state colleges. I don't begrudge either of them anything, they've made their choices and live the life they chose, but all the years of education bear no fruit at all. I fear they are not isolated examples.
I do feel very sorry for kids today - and the parents who probably "pushed" them to go to college as a guarenteed way to financial and social success. And I don't blane them for having those expectains when so many did come out of school with business or law degrees to be hired immediately into high paying, often high levelm corporate jobs during the boom years of the last decade. I certainly understand the frustration - and anger (displaced IMHO) - they must feel towards the system that they see as letting them down. But there does come a time when people do have to let go of some of the long held expectations they have and, well, try to find a way to muddle thru in this new economy. The skills a person gains getting an education are never wasted even if you can't use them to earn money (much like your brothers) but I think young people need to come to terns with the fact that their idealized life isn't going to mesh with reality. And that maybe they will have to live a simpler more frugal life then their parents (those Beemer driving Yuppies of Yore :-)!) ever did.
I agree that there is a way to get an education and not get into debt. I wish that I'd taken that path (and not gone to law school at all).
How does a person "give back" an education? I can understand the house, consumer goods, car, etc -- but what? they're going to take the education out of my brain? my experience? Or is it that they just take the degree away (e.g., I can no longer claim that I have the degree?).
That's probably one of the reasons they make it so you can't claim bankruptcy. Although my understanding is that many people don't lose their assets (house, car, business, etc..) in certain types of bankruptcies, they just get the debt discharged but get to keep everything. So don't know why it would make a difference in a bankruptcy court if it was your house or your brain - you get to keep both :-)! Although, in true entrepurneial (sp? - gosh dern state education :-)) spirit, I am thinking about setting up a Zombie Brain bank for the coming apocalypse and zombie hoarde invasion. I get the brains of each person who can't pay their student loans and sell it back to the zombies - thus keeping the rest of us (the new post-apocalyptic 1%) safe from zombie attacks ;-)!
Although, in true entrepurneial (sp? - gosh dern state education :-)) spirit, I am thinking about setting up a Zombie Brain bank for the coming apocalypse and zombie hoarde invasion. I get the brains of each person who can't pay their student loans and sell it back to the zombies - thus keeping the rest of us (the new post-apocalyptic 1%) safe from zombie attacks ;-)!
I think zombies have been getting a bad rap. I just recently met zombie in a penguin suit and completely changed my opinion of the species.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdEKIsnEkM&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdEKIsnEkM&feature=player_embedded)
my idealized life is -- at this point -- simply debt-free and minimalist. i don't even need to own a house, or have a nice car or whatever. Seriously. I am getting my wardrobe down to a high quality 30 pieces. I'm not looking for anything fancy-pantsy.
i want to do work that i enjoy (and i enjoy my work), and i want my debt to be gone. i work extra hard to pay it off (doing things that i'm not really ready to do with my business -- like leading teacher trainings, something i'd like to have waited until next year to do -- and yes, it is hard work to teach 12 hrs straight three days in a row, plus run your business for the prior 5 days and then the next 5 days, plus also parent those five days -- I was lucky that NZ had a three day weekend coming up after that first one!).
The tough part to me is that I didn't fully realize -- when i took out those loans -- how they were adding up, what protections didn't exist, and how the fraud situation is real with those debt. It's amazing what these companies get away with.
I'm concerned, right now, that the company is being hinky. Usually, when I make my payment, the company sends me a letter saying that they have removed X amount from my account (the payment) as a collection on the debt. I've gotten this letter every month for the last 8 or 9 years. But now, I haven't gotten one in 6 months. But, the payment is still taken out.
I called my usual person, who is no longer with the company, and was given a new person. She said she would "look into the situation of my account." and I haven't heard back. I also emailed the company recently to see what was what -- I'm still waiting on a reply.
It's a bit confusing, to be honest. I mean, I am honestly trying to pay them back, saving up to pay one big lump sum (which is what my accountant recommends because paying down on the principle doesn't work with credit companies -- he could explain why better than I could, but he recommended paying the interest each month and then saving-saving-saving to pay it all off in one lump), and I've made payments (autopayments) every month for several years... why now? and for that matter -- what now?
So messy.
Yossarian
10-29-11, 10:55am
saving up to pay one big lump sum (which is what my accountant recommends because paying down on the principle doesn't work with credit companies -- he could explain why better than I could, but he recommended paying the interest each month and then saving-saving-saving to pay it all off in one lump)
I'm curious what the reasoning is for this recommendation. There are cash flow reasons why you may not want to prepay, but almost everyone ends up paying more in interest on the loan than what you earn on savings (especially these days) so deferring your payments is usually a net loss for you.
because it's with a debt collection agency, and i already tried that.
first, when it was with citibank, i was paying two checks a month -- the first was my monthly auto payment, and the second was a check that had on it "apply to the principal" which is what the bank instructed me to do with it.
then, from what i can tell, the bank was not applying those payments to my debt, but "holding" it (?) and then charging me a fee for "holding" it. The money was coming out of my account at my credit union every month, though, so they were cashing the check.
So, I added the "fee" (which was $4? or so) to the principal check, with the note about applying it to the principal and my account number, and then they stopped taking my automatic payment because i had "paid my payment well in advance, which would be credited to my account." Meaning that they were not applying to the principal, but taking the lump sum and spreading it out and would "resume automatic payments when there was no longer a credit on my account."
I called and explained that i'd wanted to pay down my principal a little bit more each month (it was anywhere from $20 to $200 on average). They said that was fine, and I said that's what I have been trying to do for several months -- and i'd talked to my loan officer person this whole time who was "advising" me on how to do the checks, etc.
So, I assume I'm all set up, and then I go through about 4 months where I had no spare check for principal, but i still made my loan payment. Then there was something about a fee for not paying my second check, which went into the holding account. I don't know if the fee was for the holding account or for paying down. I could never figure that out.
Then the fee stacked up, and I was given a nasty letter that said if I don't pay what I owe on this monthly fee from several months (or $28 or so), then i would be in default.
So I called the bank and asked why I would be in default for paying a fee for something that I wasn't utilizing and there was some language about that, and then i discovered that my account was now with the debt collection agency.
When they called, I set up to pay the payments that I could afford each month -- which was the amount I was paying Citibank. I then asked how I could pay down on the principal, and they said that I could do that, but then it would incur a higher interest rate and a collection fee. When I asked them whether that could be waived or whatever, they said no, and that I needed to choose my payment and stick with it.
(i believe this i because the company makes more money on my debt than they make if i pay it off, because they sell the debts as investments).
After talking with my accountant (who is very conservative) about my situation, he recommended 3 courses of action: 1. taking out a home equity loan (since that would pay it off witht he amount of equity we held in the house), and paying off the debt collection agency, and then paying our credit union directly (this was before the bubble burst); 2. trying to get a consolidation loan either through the CU (they rejected me) or through the federal government (they wanted a payment that was 10X higher per month than the credit agency -- which i cannot and could not afford); or 3. saving up the lump sum and paying off the debt collection agency all at once.
Even though I was making payments, the debt collection agency sold part of my loans. I was then given notice from another debt collection agency, and then another that I owed on X amount and that they were taking me to court. I asked for all of the legal information that I needed, and I called the current debt collection agency to find out what had happened. They said because of my "failure to pay off the debt in full on demand" several months back (i'd gotten a letter to this effect, called them and ws told "don't worry, we are legally required to send that letter, but you are making payments so everything is fine.") they'd sent some of my loan on to another collection agency.
This collection agency did have all of the right paperwork, and the current debt collection agency also verified the loan. This meant that -- in court -- it wouldn't be discharged. With this second credit agency, I tried to set up a payment program, but they pushed and asserted that they were going to court for a judgment.
At this time, I was immigrating to NZ, and part of the paperwork asks if you have any court orders against you -- and had they gotten a judgment, I would have had one. I didn't want to jeopardize my chances of getting in here, and so I asked to negotiate a price with them. Our credit union approved a home equity loan, and we were able to "pay off" this collection agency and avoid judgment.
When we sold the house, we luckily retained enough value that the mortgage and home equity loan were paid off (this was post bubble), and we were also able to use the capital to set up our business here. we have no business or consumer loans. the only debt we have is my student loan debt.
because I am also on a strict budget (immigration looks at our personal and business accounts every several months because the visa stipulates that our business has to be solvent and that we cannot rely on any form of government aid while on this visa -- so they check our personal accounts to see if we are at risk and can provide financial counseling and suggest loans, grants, or other aid for our business), i can really only afford, for cash flow reasons, to make the base payment.
likewise, because I do not trust the debt collection agency to apply money to the principal, or sell the debt as I am attempting to do that, or call in the debt in it's entirety and get a judgment against me (things that have happened to friends of mine working with the same company), my accountant suggested that I save up the money and pay it off in a lump sum.
This way, i'm likely to pay less interest, because you negotiate toward the amount of the debt and a percentage of the interest, rather than paying principal, high interest, and fees. For his clients in a similar position, this is the only thing that has worked.
Though, I am considering a federal consolidation loan (again) if the new payments are less based on income.
long and short, my main concern of paying more now is that it won't be applied to the principal (as with the bank) and that it would be sold and/or sent to court for judgment, and then I would be screwed.
I'd rather loose money than loose the opportunity to immigrate.
I think zombies have been getting a bad rap. I just recently met zombie in a penguin suit and completely changed my opinion of the species.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdEKIsnEkM&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdEKIsnEkM&feature=player_embedded)
Ohhhh scary!! After a Zombie-fueled Halloween weekend watching the "Resident Evil" DVDs, I have come to the conclusion that zombies are great simple livers. They don't care about jobs, money, cars, houses, clothes or social status of any sort. They don't pollute or do any kind of environmental damage, don't use fossil fuels or electricity, they don't increase the world population by having off spring (Happy 7th Billion B-Day world population btw), they live off the land, recycle us humans for food, and well... are just gosh dern swell simple livers :-)!
lol.
i'm not sure i'd go in for the diet, but the rest would be ok. So long as the kid is happy.
in other news, they removed the little campervan from across the street from our house. we miss it. i'm still thinking of moving us into a camper van. DH is unconvinced. :D
The skills a person gains getting an education are never wasted even if you can't use them to earn money (much like your brothers) but I think young people need to come to terns with the fact that their idealized life isn't going to mesh with reality. And that maybe they will have to live a simpler more frugal life then their parents (those Beemer driving Yuppies of Yore :-)!) ever did.
I hate to break something like an education down to simple dollars and sense, but when we are talking about student loans & the cost of education that is where we have to end up. I am in complete agreement that a collegiate environment provides all kinds of growth beyond just study in a chosen field and that it would be great if every person in this country could gain the social and intellectual benefits found there. But its a utopian dream. If you narrow the field to just those candidates who really want to be there we have a much better chance of success.
On a completely tangent note, I personally think 4 years (with most kids stretching it to 5 or even 6 now) is too long for most courses of study. We could dramatically cut costs by chopping a year of "general requirements" out of a degree program without significantly impacting the future of our nation. Or go the other way and give them all the general education and just a year of specific field study knowing most specialized learning is done on the job anyway. Either way, three years should be long enough to gain some independence and survival skills.
Last note, regarding a return to a more frugal lifestyle... Why in God's name don't we have a LOT more classes in high schools teaching kids the kind of frugal common sense that is so easily bantered about on these boards? The kids of most members in here probably have a pretty good understanding of how to satisfy their needs and most of their wants in a reasonable manner. Many of my own kids are pretty good, their friends are not. Without getting heavy into parental responsibility, why don't we take a little more time to show kids how to grocery shop, analyze credit card terms, calculate the real cost of owning a vehicle, invest and save (and for that matter earn!), etc. I don't know about school districts anywhere else, but that kind of "life education" is lacking here. It just seems like, if we HAVE to make a choice based on economics, that would be more valuable to learn for most kids than gaining knowledge of 15th century Italian artists.
I hate to break something like an education down to simple dollars and sense, but when we are talking about student loans & the cost of education that is where we have to end up. I am in complete agreement that a collegiate environment provides all kinds of growth beyond just study in a chosen field and that it would be great if every person in this country could gain the social and intellectual benefits found there. But its a utopian dream. If you narrow the field to just those candidates who really want to be there we have a much better chance of success.
On a completely tangent note, I personally think 4 years (with most kids stretching it to 5 or even 6 now) is too long for most courses of study. We could dramatically cut costs by chopping a year of "general requirements" out of a degree program without significantly impacting the future of our nation. Or go the other way and give them all the general education and just a year of specific field study knowing most specialized learning is done on the job anyway. Either way, three years should be long enough to gain some independence and survival skills.
Last note, regarding a return to a more frugal lifestyle... Why in God's name don't we have a LOT more classes in high schools teaching kids the kind of frugal common sense that is so easily bantered about on these boards? The kids of most members in here probably have a pretty good understanding of how to satisfy their needs and most of their wants in a reasonable manner. Many of my own kids are pretty good, their friends are not. Without getting heavy into parental responsibility, why don't we take a little more time to show kids how to grocery shop, analyze credit card terms, calculate the real cost of owning a vehicle, invest and save (and for that matter earn!), etc. I don't know about school districts anywhere else, but that kind of "life education" is lacking here. It just seems like, if we HAVE to make a choice based on economics, that would be more valuable to learn for most kids than gaining knowledge of 15th century Italian artists.
That lack of knowledge makes for great consumers (great for the marketers/lenders). Intentional?
flowerseverywhere
11-2-11, 1:08pm
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html
anyone see this article? "Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more." They got the info from arrest records.
I just read all the entries about student loans and bankruptcy's. I agree that if they could be discharged through bankruptcy everyone would just take as much as they could and then declare bankruptcy when they graduated. Because after all, student loans are a choice. You sign a contract with the loan company, they give you money expecting it to be paid back. Same with houses, cars, credit cards.
Unfortunately the high schools, which could be vary valuable in teaching kids economic responsibility, are mired down in Federal and state mandates, many of them unfunded. And I don't know about your school district, but I so some part time work in mine and many times I wonder if the schools exist to teach the children or to give the teachers, bus drivers and support staff good pensions and health benefits while protecting the bad ones with tenure. A sad state of affairs.
flowerseverywhere
11-2-11, 1:23pm
I agree that there is a way to get an education and not get into debt. I wish that I'd taken that path (and not gone to law school at all).
How does a person "give back" an education? I can understand the house, consumer goods, car, etc -- but what? they're going to take the education out of my brain? my experience? Or is it that they just take the degree away (e.g., I can no longer claim that I have the degree?).
Why don't you work as an attorney if you went to law school? That would seem to solve a lot of your problems. There are many attorney jobs that do a lot of good for people, working with abused children or adults, helping with loans like you are getting help, protecting those that need protection, helping people set up businesses are many of the things that are very useful to society.
I suppose tat depends upon how you are defining the problem.
My problem, really, isn't the loans themselves. I've been paying them back since 2002. I have 30 years to do it, technically, but of course, now it's in collections so who knows? I'm also working diligently to pay it off -- and it looks like we'll have $11k to add to that pile (in the CD that I roll over) in the next 6 months. So, it's 1/8 of the way to being paid off at that point. It will get done, I know it. :D
The real problem -- for me -- is emotional:
1. that i took on the debt in the first place;
2. that i went against my better judgement and what i knew i wanted for myself at 19, at 22 (first year of law school) and kept going to school and taking out loans when i knew i didn't want to do that work;
3. getting over my resentment (toward myself, i think) that i was so under the sway of my family and my desire to please them that i'd done something terribly foolish;
4. regretting that i didn't take the 5 yr stint in montana to pay this off, but also somewhat thankful that i didn't.
how would working as an attorney solve these problems?
For me, debt forgiveness is confused with personal forgiveness. :D (i literally figured this out last week. I've been working very hard on this personal issue).
I still believe that debt forgiveness would be a great part of the plan moving forward, but i do not think that i would qualify for any form of it, nor seek it -- even if it were available to me. Because it doesn't equal personal forgiveness.
That being said, I love the work that I do and I do it well. This is my business (http://www.healium.co.nz). I've used my law degree more in the last three years than i ever have before (and i did work as an attorney for 1.5 years after graduating).
Starting this business has been everything for me. Fulfillment of my dream, work as one of my passions, and it's honestly making it possible for us to live the life that we want to!
When we lived in PA, DH was working an office job that he found very tedious and difficult, and that was not keeping up with COL. He was great at his work, and loved his coworkers and his employers loved him as a worker and as a person, but they simply were not giving raises after the recession hit, and we felt blessed that he had a job at all, considering the cuts that were made. Many of our friends lost their jobs. It was hard on all of us.
I was working as a yoga teacher then -- mostly an independent contractor. I ran a successful, profitable business, but the margin was small. I can only teach so many classes (exhaustion!), and with the glut of new teachers on the market, studios and gyms started to pay less. I had a small group of dedicated private clients, too, so I was blessed that i could balance out my income there. But even after expenses, my business was not profiting much. My income paid my student loan payments, put into our emergency fund -- which usually went to home or car repairs. When we vacationed, I would always work -- which offset the costs of our holidays plus allowed me to take it as an expense as well. I usually made a profit on all of our holidays -- including coming to NZ, our european trips, and all of our us trips. So, while i am widely travelled, it is because of my work that we were able to do it. :)
i put that out there because people often say "the money you spent on your travels could have paid your student loans!" but our travels were working holidays for me. I would combine the loss of income for not staying home plus the costs of travel/housing/etc, and then negotiate the contracts to make sure that i was either breaking even or earning money. I usually earned, and that money would go to the student loans and emergency fund. Truly, the second income was being used secondarily.
But i knew that without starting a studio, I would never, ever get ahead. And, I felt that where we were -- it just wasn't possible to start a studio without a lot more capital than we had. This -- and because we wanted to be here -- is why we moved to NZ.
Here, I do work that I love. In 1 yr and 8 mo since i've started this business, we made a small profit in year one, and are really doing well here in year two. The expenses of the business are covered, and we are able to cover our living expenses (total, $8k), the remainder is being reinvested into the business, paying us back for our initial investment, and going into the account where we are saving to pay off the student loan.
This is what will solve the financial problem of the loan. Starting this business, while risky, is paying off. And i'm doing work that I love and I do well. It's fabulous!
Anyway, catharsis. It took me a while to really realize where I was feeling into this space.
Not that I don't support the movement, but I'm feeling less. . . voracious . . . about it now. because I'm realizing that i need personal forgiveness, not debt forgiveness. :)
College has become such a business. I think we're encouraged to think its so important so we buy what they have to offer......which doesn't always seem very useful.
I can't believe at this point that having a college education is considered that important anymore. I rarely hear of many kids going into the field they studied for. And there's so many totally irrelevant, stupid courses that are required. My son transferred after his freshman year and hardly any of his courses transferred....and they were requirements.
I think we've gotten off track, thinking that everyone needs to go to college and every 18 year old should know what they want to do forever. I'm not sure what the alternative could be........but so much time and money is wasted on "higher education".
My son needed to take one more "requirement" to graduate. So he chose one that sounded easy, since he spends so much time on working jobs in his major. He chose a course that discusses how androgynous performers affect culture. WHAT????
What a waste of time/money/resources. And even though he is close to a genius in his major..........he had to repeat a required math course like 4 times. And also take foreign language. These courses absolutely in no way "furthered" his education or prepared him for anything in the future.
I'm with you and Gregg on this one Cathy.
I think that first, university should not be available to all. that is to say, there should be tough entrance examinations, and if you don't pass, you don't go. I met illiterate -- as in literally cannot read -- people who had scholarships to the university plus stipends and such (guess who?). Universities should not offer remedial courses.
This means more trades and vocations for people who do not get into university.
From there, I agree with Gregg and Cathy that the "general education" requirements could be put into one year, and the remaining major credits into two. from there, anyone needing to go further or wanting to, can get further education.
To me, things like law school could be managed as it is in the system here (or UK system), where it's essentially an undergraduate major. you do your 4 yr university, and three years of it is law school. vet school is similar, as is engineering, etc. This makes sense to me -- rather than needing a secondary education. A lot of medical/health professions here are similar, but not doctors (nurses, osteopaths, physios, dentists, etc).
Anyway, just some thoughts out there.
Also, I'd like to talk about the "OE" or "gap year."
I think that using that is a GREAT idea. First, the "OE" is actually something different here -- something you do during your working years, usually as part of your work. :) Most people here go to the UK or Middle east, which I think is interesting. Some take a year-long sabbatical and do volunteer work overseas for a year or so, or go WOOFA-ing. So, they save up for it themselves. Most people do it between ages 25 and 35, usually before having children (or if they had children very young, it might be between 35 and 40 after the children are 18 yrs old).
but the gap year, that's something. a lot of kids work during this year and/or volunteer. I think this is a great thing, to be honest, because the young person gets a sense of "life without school" and can go out into the world (while still living at home), and see what the working world is. S/he can go and try a lot of jobs, volunteer, meet people, and see what s/he would like.
In my first year of university, I discovered that medical school (my original idea) was not a good one, and then wanted to quit and learn to teach yoga and give massage and learn how to start and run my own studio. I wanted to quit uni, go to community college and get a business degree. I wanted to spend the summer getting my yoga/bodywork certification to work my way through community college. I figured it out after just one year.
I know a lot of people who are like me, and a lot of the kids who enjoy a gap year here do much the same. One of my friend's spent her gap year painting houses, an din the process learned how to do specialized finishes. she was then hired to help out on a film set. She decided she wanted to learn to be a set painter, and her boss suggested that she take a specific course at the local technical/arts college. It was literally a two semester certificate. She was able to pay cash (from her job earnings from that job), and works as a set painter today. That's about 15 years later.
So it really served her to get out there and work, and see what she wanted to do, so that she could then get the training that she needed.
ApatheticNoMore
11-2-11, 8:45pm
I disagree. I think universities should be available for all at least so long as they are PUBLICALLY financed. I believe if the public is PAYING for it even in part, the public should have some right to use it. The public paying for something that almost none of them actually have a right to use is just bizarre.
Now it is not the case the few do not get their cut. Research is currently funded by universities in part. And of course not every college admits everyone and that is fine, CA specifically has a multi-tier system. Community colleges are pretty much available to all (do you even need a GED? I don't know) and you don't even have to be pursuing a degree. Cal-State schools let in a large part of those who apply, though a more formal application process is needed. UC schools are more elite especially the elite ones. Not every education opportunity is avialable to everyone but at least the public does have some opportunities open to them and their children (even if they have a B rather than a straigth A average!) and some stake in funding the system.
Hey but don't charge any taxes for it and I'm perfectly fine with a private university only taking geniuses.
In DK, where the public does pay -- and for vocations, etc -- there are entrance qualifications. It isn't open to anyone. You still have to qualify to go. You have to do well in school, do well in specific exams, and then take entrance exams to the schools that you want to go to. It's competitive.
If you don't qualify, you sit for the exams again the next year, or you can go into another area of inquiry. It's not a 'given' that you will qualify to go. And, if you don't qualify, usually you can easily get in a vocational or technical school, or other schooling, in the off-cycle. I'm not sure if DK universities have a mid-term entrance process.
It's not about 'only taking geniuses' but really only taking students who actually qualify. I cannot tell you the level of frustration I experienced at university when I was sitting in classroom with people who were not functionally literate. I'm sorry, but you should at least be functionally literate to qualify for university.
I also think that sports-and-universities might need to be segregated. the benefits of sports at universities is great (brings in a lot of income and supports a lot of scholarship, among other, programs), but the problem is that you end up with people who aren't able to manage the academic requirements but who are excellent at the given sport. Of course, MANY if not MOST of the student-athletes (male and female) are qualified, so it's not an iditement of everyone in every program.
Don't get me started on university degrees! Both our kids went, paid by us so they wouldn't start life in debt, and now our son does something completely unrelated to his university years, and our daughter is back in school for her masters which she needs to advance in the job she already has. This is a job she can and has learned on the job but still insists she has that paper to advance. Both are successful, but started needing that degree.
There are so many unnecessary classes they require, but there is no recourse but to take them. What can a kid do? They can rebel but then they don't get the degree, and as someone said, there is that education creep into most jobs. Even gas station attendants need to be well versed on the computer, and be able to communicate ideas. (things that should be covered in HS)
flowerseverywhere
11-2-11, 10:24pm
decided to delete this post as it was too harsh. sometimes my emotions get the best of me.
Not really sure where to start with that one, flowers. :)
First, I'm sorry for your husband's health problems. I hope that he is on the mend in every way.
Second, in the work that I do, I do make money and I do pay my debts. :) I don't need to work as an attorney to work and pay off debts. I've paid off 1/3 of my debts so far. This is actually more than most of my friends from law school, many of whom work as attorneys and some of whom do not.
Third, I had no intention of going into default, and explained the situation before. I believe that there is a situation of "fraudulent default" just as there are "fraudulent foreclosures." It is simply what happened to me, even though I was making payments and attempting to honor my debts. And, I pay the collection agency every month (and have since it went into default) and save up the rest to pay it off in one lump sum.
Forth, I agree with you that I was the one who made the decisions -- and that is what I was speaking to in the last post. The reality is that I have resented having to pay back the loans because I have resented myself for the decisions that I'd made. To eschew this personal resentment, I wanted the debt "away" without having to pay for it (even though I have continued to pay it from the beginning). So, I do admit that there is some hope that I would qualify for some form of debt forgiveness in the voraciousness of my opinion.
Fifth, I don't feel that I made the wrong decision in making the choice of work that I made. Most of my friends who are attorneys actually earn less than I do. They also are caught in the two-income trap (where all expenses are covered by two incomes, instead of one), which we have never gotten ourselves involved in. In the past, my husband's work supported us and mine was supplemental (paid off school debt, paid our emergency fund for home/car repairs). Today, my work supports us and DH's work is supplemental, but *I* still pay 100% of the student loan debt that I have. So, I certainly take responsibility for it.
Finally, if you separate out my emotional needs from the arguments around debt forgiveness -- and I know it's messed up and interwoven in previous posts -- there is still some precedent and jurisprudence around the benefits of debt forgiveness.
As I wrote before, the jurisprudence around it is in bankruptcy court -- which is something that I value even though I have no plans to actually file for bankruptcy. I believe it to be a healthy legal protection for our society. with this, another common form of debt forgiveness exists with student loans -- if you work for government or for other special needs/interest areas, then your debts are gone in 5 years. It's often stated as "we pay your loans for you!" But the reality is that taxpayers are not paying for this. Those debts are forgiven. Usually, it will only cover federal student loans, btw. So, forgiveness is a normal part of American jurisprudence and practice.
There is also precedent -- in long past and present -- for debt forgiveness of the masses. Economies do not collapse because of it, and usually thrive after such a scenario. I gave the example of modern Saudi Arabia's avoidance of Arab Spring by providing a package of aid to it's "common man" that included debt forgiveness, interest free loans, and several other elements. The country has not collapsed. Additionally, they completely forgave the debt for Iraq, which has also not caused them economic harm.
So, debt forgiveness is not new.
And debt forgiveness can be part of the economic stimulus plan. Even the new rules that Obama announced earlier this month (or October) have debt forgiveness in them, as well as much lower payments. This provides a lot of day-to-day economic relief for people, and has many benefits to the economy.
So long as people can step away from the intense moralizing around it (ie, shaming language like i felt in your post), then we might be able to study it for what it actually IS -- an economic and legal tool to help facilitate economic growth.
And, I believe it is a beneficial platform for this particular movement.
----
Aside from all of that, forgiveness of my debt would not give me emotional forgiveness of myself. I have to find that on my own. That is a much greater debt than the one I have to pay the collection agency. It is much more intense. I am getting there. :) This thread has helped.
flowerseverywhere
11-3-11, 2:49am
I am sorry if you felt attacked, and as I said I do applaud you for paying off your debt.
Reading all the posts about debt forgiveness just confuses me unless there is a major medical problem or job loss through no fault of your own. I just cannot see it because somewhere along the line someone will lose money. If the banks lose money people lose their jobs.
But I guess right now my perspective is probably off, so I apologize.
No worries, flowers, i assumed that the communication may not have been clear because of your circumstances.
I don't think the perspective is necessarily "off" but other than a "moral argument" about personal responsibility, no one (not just you) seems able to discuss the issues around debt forgiveness in general, and in particular, around student loans.
If we take the personal out of it, i.e., normal everyday folks, then the moral argument becomes more ambiguous.
It's one thing to say "Iraq owes Saudi Arabia money! Iraq should take personal responsibility!" But for some reason, Saudi Arabia decided that Iraq didn't need to take personal responsibility. Why would they do this?
I've also seen claims that if debts are forgiven, it will cause economic collapse/hardship. The forgiveness of debt in the Iraq/SA situation was BILLIONS of dollars. Saudi Arabia is doing ok. Iraq is doing much better now that the debt is cleared off it's list. Please explain who is feeling the hardship and how? And if it's Saudi Arabia feeling the hardship, why would they forgive the debt of their own volition in the first place?
Companies, btw, play the same game. ANd the same game is played between companies and the government as well. And with bankruptcy court (and the number 1 and 2 reasons for going are job loss and medical -- nationally speaking), the government is negotiating or ordering companies as to what they will get, restructuring and/or discharging debt for an individual. Please explain to me how this leads these companies -- which often show profit margins -- into ruin.
Likewise, Saudi Arabia -- as part of it's economic stimulus AND to avoid Arab Spring -- chose to include debt forgiveness, interest free loans, and several other elements to the package for the common person in SA. This was also a multi-billion dollar plan. Why would they do this if forgiving the debts of the common man is so ruinous?
Perhaps, you can still argue that it's morally ruinous -- but economically? socially? politically?
No one has been able to assert how. They only assert "you take the debt, you pay it." --- a moral argument. I agree with this moral argument in principle. But, I also see the benefits of wide-spread debt forgiveness in a situation like now, the situation in which we find ourselves at this moment in history. A situation that is not as bad as SA, but pretty darn close, as demonstrated by this movement of "immoral young people."
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-11, 12:59pm
Perhaps, you can still argue that it's morally ruinous -- but economically? socially? politically?
Well as for housing I don't know what additional debt forgiveness anyone would need. You can ALREADY WALK AWAY from a mortgage . It won't hurt anything but your credit score (oh boo hoo, it has some consequences). If you think that we should somehow via the taxpayers pay off everyones mortgage, well how is this doing anything but screwing over the renters in this country (unless they somehow get a free house thrown into the deal too)? Still I'd rather bail the homeowners than the banks if it came to that.
Student loans are more tricky than mortgages as you can't walk away from them or even get out of them via bankruptcy (plus I do feel more sympathy for that crowd than the homeowners crowd, just because they are SO YOUNG when they made that choice). They weren't necessarily in their mid 20s or even 30s when they made the decision like homeowners, they were maybe 18. So maybe some slack should be cut. But a wholesale paying off of everyones student loan? Do you know that 75% of the country doesn't even have college degrees. So that 75% should entirely pay off the student loans of some maybe 5% of college students who got deep into debt (not all college students, not those who went decades ago of course, but also not some who use the public college system or don't take out debt beyond their probable future earning capacity to pay).
The problem with a protest of college grads is it is already in some way a protest of the priviledged (granted that they did indeed get screwed on college loans). Now this doesn't seem unseemly if their protest is the priviledged protesting broad social issues: banks having made out like bandits with taxpayer dollars, or insufficient financial regulation, or protests in solidarity with the non-priviledged such as say hotel maids that are striking (now that is NOT a priviledged group!), or protests against the XL pipeline, or heck even the whole economic system if they want, in terms of it's broad outcomes. But if it's purely about their own debt, I'm not sure it's really going to garner that much sympathy from say those working as maids who would have liked nothing more than the chance to have gone to college maybe.
Also if debt is totally written off who pays for it? Serious question, who pays? The banks for having made the loans in the first place? For having given an 100k loan to a philsosophy major? That would make some sense. But my understanding is they made those loans knowing they had an implicit government backing. So I'm thinking it is the taxpayers that pay. And what is done about college loans in the future? If you just write off the loans and keep making loans, are you just going to write off them in the future again? I mean if we wrote off all loans and got rid of all college loans forevermore, that might be ok (just got the federal government entirely out of the college loan business). But if we write them off and keep making them and the taxpayers are paying, you have a silly system in which you in effect have implicit public funding of education and people take out loans that they never intend to pay and basically the whole thing is dishonest on some level and appeals mostly to the dishonest. I'd rather just have OPEN explicitly PUBLICALLY funded education, rather than publically funded education through the backdoor. It is far more honest, transparent, and straightforward, there is just a social agreement to fund education and everyone knows they can take advantage of it if they choose. Now there are reasons I have preferred this done on the state level, federal control of this will have some very serious downsides I think, but if the states can't fund education and can't raise taxes to do so, and ran up a whole bunch of other unnecessary obligations in addition (and this is CA right now), then I don't know.
The question of access to everyone is interesting. In my mind private institutions can accept or reject anyone they want, but if you take public money or are fully publicly funded then you should have open doors. If you have much tougher requirements to STAY in school rather than just to get there it might weed out a lot of young people who either won't benefit from the experience. Some combination of things including grades and performance in areas other than pure academics could be looked at to establish eligibility. I don't think we should look solely to grades because there are a lot of people in the world with extremely valuable skill sets that don't happen to do so well at taking tests. Anyway, the idea is to try to get the universities filled with people who really want to be there instead of those with nothing else to do.
poetry_writer
11-3-11, 2:36pm
Wonder what they will do with loans for college that were co signed? A friend is sweating bullets as her son is defaulting on his....he simply cant pay them (why she co signed i have no idea, crazy!). Some of them are private loans. Not sure what will happen with those. Her son was unemployed for a long time and just now got a job. Lower paying that what he was expecting.........arent they always.
The question of "who pays" is really valid.
The reality in situations of debt forgiveness is that the creditor pays. They hold the risks of the debt, so they are the one risking not getting paid in a situation of debt forgiveness.
In the case of bankruptcy courts, for example, when a debt is discharged (forgiven), the court and government is not paying the debt. taxpayers are not involved. It is the creditors who 'pay' for the debt.
So, in the case of student loans, consumer debt, etc -- it's the banks making the loans (and in particular, very risky loans based on government incentives, low interest rates, and whatever other causes exist, as well as acting to make a profit in their own and their shareholder's interests) who end up "paying for" the debt. Not taxpayers.
The big question comes in at the stimulus and bail-out packages. Taxpayers do pay for that, of course. The question is -- what does it pay for? It keeps banks afloat -- they give themselves bonuses and record high profits.
To be sure, the SA stimulus package that includes debt forgiveness and debt relief in general to the public does have rules around who qualifies. not everyone will, and it's questionable whether co-signed ones would.
--
for your friend's son, i would recommend talking to an accountant about his options before he goes into default. Once it's in default, the whole situation is tough. If he can consolidate and/or restructure, that would be the best option, and usually you can do this without a co-signer. This would relieve your friend of her responsibility in the debt, and since he has a job, the restructuring may be designed around what he can pay (even though he's getting paid less than expected).
also, he may be able to take on part time work (particularly retail) in the holiday season. my husband usually had to work longer hours over the holiday, and as a salaried person he couldn't get away from it, so I would often do some extra holiday work (in addition to my normal work) to bring in a little extra cash for our family. It's a good way to just create a little buffer. And if he's lucky, he might be able t continue with part-time work in addition to his job.
My husband also did consulting work (he's a writer/editor) on the side of his regular work on nights/weekends, and so we were able to bring in a little more income that way. YOu'll be surprised at what you can find part time to help cover the various expenses.
also, there needs to be a lot of restructuring around education -- which we've talked about -- and there are a lot of ways to go about this.
So far, things have been brought up such as:
1. taxpayer supporting more (a la CA's system);
2. work-study programs for students (Spartana's suggestions, mirrored in DK);
3. more valuing of trade/vocations and apprentice systems (or a reintroduction of this);
4. tracking systems (such as france) which is based on all kinds of testing and then what families choose for their children, and/or entrance exams/requirements.
5. reducing the 'requirements" for graduation, etc (3 yr degrees instead of 4-5 year degrees);
6. making "graduate" degrees into undergraduate programs (UK system);
7. possibly separating sports from the equation of higher education;
8. making the basic requirement (high school diploma or GED) a solid education and not having "degree creep" for various jobs (e.g., to be a groundskeeper at johns hopkins, you need a bachelors; file clerks who need bachelors, secretaries who need masters degrees).
There are probably many, many others that could come into play.
I know that, from a personal stand point, we're going to make sure that hawk discovers what he wants to do before going into higher education. It's not a fore-gone conclusion for us that he "needs" it. From there, he'll better know what kind of education he wants. Even if we have the money to pay for it -- and we may fund some of it, that hasn't been decided -- we will encourage him to NOT take out loans to pay for his education. In fact, we are raising him to live debt-free, which is how we are working to live (once the student loans are paid, no more debt!!!).
The issue with the banks lending because of government encouragement/backing IS an issue. Most certain. This is why the bail outs could include some funding to make sure that the banks don't fail. But for me, taxpayers funding them so the they don't fail AND tax payers also having to pay back the debts they owe in an economy that still isn't' on it's feed when banks are showing record profits and big-wigs getting bonuses. . . that's just not equitable.
I think it can be "people get debt forgiveness" (and this would likely have parameters), AND banks get some bail out funds to help them too. And that's where the taxpayers pay AND receive a benefit.
ApatheticNoMore
11-3-11, 6:04pm
So, in the case of student loans, consumer debt, etc -- it's the banks making the loans (and in particular, very risky loans based on government incentives, low interest rates, and whatever other causes exist, as well as acting to make a profit in their own and their shareholder's interests) who end up "paying for" the debt. Not taxpayers.
The big question comes in at the stimulus and bail-out packages. Taxpayers do pay for that, of course. The question is -- what does it pay for? It keeps banks afloat -- they give themselves bonuses and record high profits.
Call my cynical or something, I've become very skeptical that banks actually pay for anything, that they are really anything more than "pass through entities", if you will, to soak the taxpayers and the citizens.
To get specific, let's think about what happened in housing. So the housing debt was collaterized into Mortgage Backed Securities. The MBS should be someone's risky "asset", if not the banks, then at least the MBS holders (a bondholder). What REALLY happened though is that the Federal Reserve bought over a trillion dollars in MBS (and may buy even more - the real bailouts were not TARP but through the FED!). The risk of many risky loans was taken onto the Federal Reserve, not the banks, not the bondholders. Who pays then? Possibly the taxpayers if the Fed is now bankrupt, but I think the Fed basically financed it by printing money. Ultimately the citizens pay through inflation I guess. The banks? Oh not bloody likely. The person saving or earning dollars? Yep ..... they see savings and wages losing out to inflation.
Now I don't know that similar programs are actually going on with student debt. But then if not now, probably in the future. It seems highly likely to me. Could the banks even pay if we wanted them to pay? I mean if we really seriously enacted legistlation to try to get these liabilities to fall on the banks would they? Aren't the banks bankrupt? Isn't Bank of America and so on totally bankrupt in actuality? So how can they pay? And we can bankrupt all the governments in the world trying to bail the banks out! Now things could be done: limits to banker bonuses enacted, Glass Stegal reinstated, banks nationalized and broken up (maybe re-privatized into consumer owned credit unions!!! It's a socialization much needed, as they failed at capitalism!). But ultimately it is still a government BAIL OUT. Just at least one with conditions.
APN,
No, certainly that is a huge part of the issue. the marriage between govt (FED) and the banks and how this whole debt-based economy works. it's a complete sham.
to me, a jubilee would actually function as a "reset" button on the situation, but i have to teach yoga class now so I can't say more. LOL Yoga classes, getting in the way of inter webbing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.