Occupy Wall Street PROTESTERS Not Letting Up - Nationwide

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.

Quote:

---

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.