Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition

What the .00001% non-OWS Participant Believes

Advertisement

I have been searching for what the OWS groups believe. I still can find no coherence in the mainstream media on that topic. It has been suggested that the above graphic (left side) represents their views. If so I offer a minority opinion with a different viewpoint (right side).

Comments

David Klamet 3 years, 1 month ago

The biggest criticism of the OWS movement seems to be that they do not present solutions--that they only draw attention to the problems.

So why is that so bad?

When my car isn't running right, do I need to know how to fix it to realize it needs to be fixed? Should I be too embarrassed to take my car to a mechanic if I can't tell him what to do?

The message of OWS is that things are really, really broken. They may not have the solutions, but they can see some of the things that are clearly not right. Until we have some agreement about the things that are broken there can be no solutions.

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

Several things have been suggested, but there is no official list of demands or solutions to my knowledge. Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a full audit of the Fed, reversal of Citizens United via legislation or constitutional amendment, returning tax rates on uppermost income brackets to Reagan era levels, are a few that have been mentioned. Term limits and publicly-funded campaigns, are others. The audit that was done is illuminating, and appalling: http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

lunacydetector 3 years, 1 month ago

your headline is wrong. it should be "What the .00001% OWS Participant Believes" since .00001% of the population make up OWS. it's not a grass roots movement either, btw.

pepper_bar 3 years, 1 month ago

The completely incoherent official listing of grievances from OWS can be found here:

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/

Occupy Lawrence has brainlessly adopted this list of grievances wholesale.

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

In what way do you find the list of incoherent? Are you addressing the grammatical structure, or do you object to the content?

pepper_bar 3 years, 1 month ago

OWS's manifesto is a random list of country music hardship lyrics that sometimes blames others for the participants' own bad judgment, and often phrases things in terms that make it seem like every Occupy participant has suffered every hardship on the list. Ultimately, there's no real message at all; the thing reads like an irrational temper tantrum.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

"In what way do you find the list of incoherent?"

In that they blame others for what they are themselves responsible. For example, "They (whoever "they" is) have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."

Whether education is a human right is debatable if irrelevant. Anyone can get as much education as they wish simply by frequenting the local public library. But what they are talking about is 'credentialism:' someone issuing a piece of paper that attests to their education. That is not in any way a human right.

Who borrowed the "tens of thousands of dollars" and to what purpose? Students borrowed them, freely, and paid them to educational institutions, some private, some public. In what way is it reasonable to blame the lender for the consequences of a borrower paying a third party? Does one blame Master Card if he buys his family too many Christmas gifts? Do you blame America Express if the cork on your Beaujolais-Villages has ruined the wine? Of course not. Then why should one criticize the banks for lending on education? Spend $160k on a Cornell English major and the profs will tell you that you are "are studying English for the sake of intellectual, as opposed to monetary, gain."
http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2011/10/20/professors-confront-belief-english-majors-will-live-garages

What right have you to complain, then, that you got no monetary gain from your own choice?

deec 3 years, 1 month ago

So you disagree with the premise, but understood what they said, so it is not incoherent.. There is now about a trillion dollars in outstanding student loans, and with the unemployment/underemployment rate combined around 25%, it is unlikely that the trillion will be repaid, This could well be the next bubble to burst.

lucky_guy 3 years, 1 month ago

The premise is all wrong, the OWS'er don't have demands because 1. they don't want to be coopted like the Tea Party. When the Tea Party was protesting, was dealing with abortion and union busting the primary demands we saw on the placards? I think not, but the Repubs coopted the movement so now that is what we are getting, not financial reforms or any thing that has any resemblence to helping the people get jobs. 2. The OWS'ers are a diverse group with many different views so it will be hard to pin them down to one set of issues, unlike the Tea Party who was united behind anything that was antiObama. 3. In 2008 the financial/political class won the class war on the other 99%. The OWS' camps are refugees from that war. The OWS'ers are camping out because they have no place else to go. Like the Palestinians and Isreal they could be there a while.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Question: If the OWS movement doesn't have a clear agenda, how do I know if I should support them? Answer: Any movement that encourages citizens to become involved in the democratic process is a movement worth supporting.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Suppose we had an election and nobody showed up, would we still have a democracy? I don't think so. The same could be argued if people showed up in very, very small numbers. Apathy is as great a threat to democracy as tyranny is. If nothing else, the OWS crown is fighting against apathy. As to your lawbreaking claim, there is some truth, some hyperbole. Political free speech is protected by the Constitution. Any laws that infringe on that, be they federal, state or local, are unconstitutional. It is clear in my mind, at least that what was happening here was political speech. I'm not speaking about what has happened in other places that have had problems, such as Oakland (I'm not clear about the exact circumstances of events there).
Justice is represented by a scale. In this case, on one side of the scale is the free speech rights of people engaging in the political process. On the other side of the scale are local ordinances against camping out in in a park. In my opinion, the scales of justice should tip in favor of free speech.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but I suspect that there must be a "compelling" reason to limit one's freedom of speech. Perhaps a local ordinance prohibiting camping in a park fits into that "compelling" reason category. Perhaps the violence in Oakland fits into that category. Perhaps we should have a court rule on the matter. Until that happens, I'm of the opinion that the OWS protest here in Lawrence, Kansas was free speech and should have been protected.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

And the "compelling" reason for not allowing freedom of speech between the hours of 11:00pm and 6:30am are what? A no camping in parks ordinance? Really?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

"As I've clearly informed you". Thank you. Mr. Supreme Court Justice Mustrun80.

kansanbygrace 3 years, 1 month ago

In general, I think your caricature is really distorted. Might adjust your perspective to see that Germany and the Scandanavian countries, with their single-payer health care, government investment in industry, education for all, and other functions you'd call either "socialist" or "marxist" are doing considerably better, and on an improving trajectory, than the globalizing corporate power structure is able to provide to date. Get your input from a broader source base and help yourself out.

funkdog1 3 years, 1 month ago

No, your generation is the one that's grown up with a sense of entitlement. You had access to cheap higher education, cheap healthcare, abundant work opportunities, pensions (which are a thing of the past) and now that you've socked all your money away for retirement you sit on your high horse and judge others. Please, look into exactly how much a public college education costs these days. It has so outpaced inflation it's ridiculous. Compare how much it costs to put an elderly person into care these days as compared with 30 or 40 years ago. Again, the increase in costs is astronomical. The middle class is disappearing because hardworking people are putting in 40 to 80 hours per week without access to affordable healthcare or decent wages, and workplace retirement funds---even just a minimal 3% match for your 401K---have pretty much dried up and blown away.

guess_again 3 years, 1 month ago

The military is part of the "elites." George is part of the military.

By transitive property, George is part of the "elites."

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Bingo. But he refuses to own it; fess up; or whatever one desires to call it. He's oppressed and under attack by the very system that funded his personal wealth to read his nonsense! Incredible!

thebigspoon 3 years, 1 month ago

Actually, transitive law says "part of George is part of the elites". Makes me wonder which part..........

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

My criticism of the OWS is not that they do not have solutions but that they do not take responsibility for the choices they already have. It's embarrassing to see Americans carrying signs complaining that they can't afford the education they chose to buy, or can't afford the home they chose to buy, can't afford the kids they chose to have. If you can't live with your own choices, I'm not terribly interested in having you impose any choices on me, thanks.

Yes, Wall Street and especially banking is too powerful. Do you know where they get their power? From the money you borrow and the money your government borrows. Every mortgage you take out is interest they collect on your work. You are increasing their wealth. Every student loan is another link in the chain that enslaves you. Want to reduce their power? It's already in your power to reduce their power over you. Stop borrowing and pay down what you already owe them.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, although I can't fully agree with the real estate statement. There are plenty of people who bought homes they could afford only to see the value cut in half as a result of the fraudulant bundling of mortgages being sold on the bond market. That was not of the average homeowner's making and could not be known. That is on the banks. Regarding student loans, I absolutely agree. People do need to take responsibility for the loans taken out for education. Same with borrowing -- just stop.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

"That is on the banks."

I have no argument, though I would add Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed to "the banks." There's enough weaselry to go around for sure, and Uncle Sugar was right in the middle.

However (since we're agreeing and I'm not used to that ;) let me play the jerk card: even though the banks were weasels, anyone who bought a house as in 'investment' has no right to complain. Investments go up and they go down, and if someone bought a house expecting to dump it off on a greater fool only to find out they were the greater fool, that person deserves no sympathy. They should whine to someone who bought the Netflix IPO.

There are plenty of people who bought a mortgage on a house they could afford. Even though they may be "underwater" in that if they sold today they would lose money, they can still afford the payments and they are still making them. Even though it didn't turn out to be a great investment, it's still a great home. My hat is off to those people. Of such are the foundations of our national prosperity. They work hard, they accept responsibility, they pay their debts.

But I am amazed at the number of people (not you, Bea) who while they complain about the banks, insist that we should have bailed them out in 2008 and should still bail them out as soon as they get in trouble. NO! Had we done it right in 2008, we would be rid of 1/3 of our parasitical banking sector and would today be better off for the trouble.

Can someone please explain how America would be worse off if a suitcase nuke were detonated under the Goldman Sachs building while its annual meeting were going on?

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Ah, Mr. A is back. To him and several others. At times your comments seem to be either malicious or just plane uninformed maybe even dumb.

  1. Read the recent blog on Elephants – I am not in favor of the current imbalance in wealth and income in this country. I want pre Reagan rates for the rich and the elimination of almost all deductions.
  2. The poor are those below $22K in income for a family of four (US definition). All I have posted is that the social safety net supporting them (averaging $20K per) should be reviewed for effectiveness and efficiency. It amounts to the total imbalance in our current accounts
  3. I believe those making between $22K and $45 K should be asked to pay a modest amount of federal income tax so that they too have “skin in the game”. These people are not poor although apparently some of the entitled on here think they are.
  4. You are clueless as to our personal income, my retirement, our medical care and the likes. The only accurate fact you have posted is my grade which you obtained from an article in a KU newsletter.
  5. You are clearly anti-military. Do away with the VA which provides compensation to those injured in service to our country. Do away with the health care for the military that was part of the inducements for people to go fight wars and to make the all volunteer force work. Do away with the pensions that apparently you think are excessive although teachers and Ford union members make more. I do point out the Mr. Obama is pursuing that notion as I write although for future service.

I suggest you get help as that feeling of massive entitlement you exhibit is sickening. No wonder the nation has problems. Give me more. Take from the middle.

For the others blog included the word leadership at the end. So the notion is military leadership. Contrary to silly ideas on here military leadership is generally attributed to flag rank.

And again the “hard left” scares the **** out of me. We seem to be defining the top 1% to be anybody the individual liberal does not like. Are we practicing reverse McCarthyism??

And yes, I want solutions. I condemn people that run around yelling fire and doing nothing to stop it. We are all pretty much aware of the problem but many of us see it differently from some of you as my graphic suggests.

Lastly, I post under my name because the LJW requires me to do so as I attended one of their CJA activities. I am unaware that using my name subjects me to special license for personal attacks. I remind you that there is a difference between criticism and libel and that is fact. Our society has seemingly forgotten that lately.

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

  1. I believe those making between $22K and $45 K should be asked to pay a modest amount of federal income tax so that they too have “skin in the game”. These people are not poor although apparently some of the entitled on here think they are. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ $22k for FOUR people is "middle class".....the same class you claim to be a part of?? Incredulousness here....

I just don't get your focus on the disenfranchised. Pick on the wealthy. Makes a whole lot more sense. A whole lot more. Here we go again:

High earners should pay considerably more in taxes than they do now. Top tax rates of even 50 percent for incomes in the seven-figure range would still be considerably lower than their level throughout the boom years of the post-war era, and should not be out of the question—nor should an estate-tax rate of similar size, for large estates.

Over time, the United States has expected less and less of its elite, even as society has oriented itself in a way that is most likely to maximize their income. The top income-tax rate was 91 percent in 1960, 70 percent in 1980, 50 percent in 1986, and 39.6 percent in 2000, and is now 35 percent. Income from investments is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. The estate tax has been gutted.

As a society, we should be far more concerned about whether most Americans are getting ahead than about the size of the gains at the top. Yet extreme income inequality causes a cultural separation that is unhealthy on its face and corrosive over time. And the most-powerful economic forces of our times will likely continue to concentrate wealth at the top of society and to put more pressure on the middle. It is hard to imagine an adequate answer to the problems we face that doesn’t involve greater redistribution of wealth.

Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times. Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools, and unsafe neighborhoods People ignore the structural issues - jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized.

Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it? Why don't you have some skin in the game?"

In hard times, Americans blame the poor.

grammaddy 3 years, 1 month ago

I don't have a problem with you being rich, I have a problem with you buying my government.

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

If this is directed at me, what in HEWQ are you talking about??? I am neither rich by any rational definition and I certainly lack the resources to buy anybody in government

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

"American economists on both the right and the left have long advocated subsidizing low-wage work as a means of social inclusion—offering an economic compact with everyone who embraces work, no matter their level of skill.

The Earned Income Tax Credit, begun in 1975 and expanded several times since then, does just that, and has been the country’s best anti-poverty program.

Yet by and large, the EITC helps only families with children. In 2008, it provided a maximum credit of nearly $5,000 to families with two children, with the credit slowly phasing out for incomes above $15,740 and disappearing altogether at $38,646. The maximum credit for workers without children (or without custody of children) was only $438. We should at least moderately increase both the level of support offered to families by the EITC and the maximum income to which it applies. Perhaps more important, we should offer much fuller support for workers without custody of children. That’s a matter of basic fairness. But it’s also a measure that would directly target some of the biggest budding social problems in the United States today. A stronger reward for work would encourage young, less-skilled workers—men in particular—to develop solid, early connections to the workforce, improving their prospects. And better financial footing for young, less-skilled workers would increase their marriageability."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/4/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So, Moderate:

In order for the WORKING POOR to get some "....skin in the game....." you'd do away with the EITC????

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Moderate: "Do away with the VA which provides compensation to those injured in service to our country. Do away with the health care for the military that was part of the inducements for people to go fight wars and to make the all volunteer force work. Do away with the pensions that apparently you think are excessive although teachers and Ford union members make more. I do point out the Mr. Obama is pursuing that notion as I write although for future service."

George, do you have a source for President Obama wanting to "do away" with the VA, health care for the military and military pensions? I've certainly never heard of such a plan by the President. Also, I'm pretty sure any president could not do such a thing all alone: it would require an act of Congress, and we both know that would never happen. However, I'm more interested in a source for President Obama making such a bold statement against the care of our military veterans. It really reads more like something the zombie corp of the reapeardededed might write.

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Ms. beatrice:

Moderate mistook a sarcastic post I made about cutting VA benefits as my actual viewpoint. I was simply making a parody of what he was blathering on about as he attacks the working poor and wants a family of four pulling in a whopping $24k per annum (before social security, Medicare, etc. deductions) to get "...skin in the game...." and pay federal income tax rather than soak the top 20% with whopping increases....which I support.

The President MAY be discussing pension payments for retiring career military....I don't know....but I most certainly do not believe anyone is calling for limitations on VA benefits or health care benefits. Again, I was poking fun at his constant harangue about "entitlements" which, truth be told, VA payments are. Just a misunderstanding....and I've had to note it to the good fellow twice before. shrug

I'm all for going after entitlements like price supports and the like. Social Security and Medicare? Sorry....that's my right. Do not mess with rights. http://www.dailywav.com/0501/warcoming.wav

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr A:

I do not see your comments as sarcasm because you have made repeated reference to my "government benfits" as an atatck on any position I post,

In our world you have to have lines and common accepted definitions. Poverty is defined by the US Government as I indicated. Somebody making more than that is in what is referred to “the near poor”. People around $45K are near the median income and not poor by any rational definition.

I would tax those at $22K something like a hundred dollars a year. Those at or near the median, more. The issue is not revenue but participation. You get taxed so that you realize that more goodies mean more tax. When near half the electorate is not taxed there is a good probability most of them will not care if the government gives them more at other peoples expenses. This can be a very dangerous situation as half the population taxes the other half to death.

I also oppose the EIC. I believe our tax code should raise revenue. If we want to increase the contribution of the social safety net to some segment of our society we should do it on budget. Same concept as EIC. If you make below a certain level but do have income we give you money – on budget and you get taxed on it (albeit very little). What started out as a good idea and a more limited initiative has expanded to a lot of money to a lot of people.

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

There's a ton of sarcasm. That's me. Believe what you want.

You're against the EITC despite the compelling facts above? Ok. You want the working poor....families of 4 who earn more than $24k per annum... to pay tax just to demonstrate something....what is it that you think they're getting? They're most certainly eligible for SNAP (foodstamps) as a supplement....but that program isn't to feed people: It's to fuel Agri-Business and price supports; they're probably eligible for LIEAP (Energy Assistance) but that's really set up to pay the utility monopolies that are controlled by the wealthy, etc. I don't get it. What's your fixation on the working poor?

Constantly, you harp that only 50% of the people working are paying income tax and you focus....I mean focus as in a cooridinated, orchestrated spot on dead center bullseye target.....only on the working poor. You compel me to advocate the other direction......the focus has got to be on the top 20% income recipients.....not the bottom!

Ok....a "token" $100 payment. Fine. Done deal. Now what???? Can we start soaking the $200+k boys now??? Give me a break.....there's more to this than having "...skin in the game....": There's a personal agenda at work here. Who is it that you think is getting something for nothing when they work 50hours and more per week; live a decent life; are not criminals (and God only knows how many of us would be criminals if we subsisted on a gross income of $24k for a household of 4): 30% going for rent = $7200 per annum (30% of gross income is standard fare with HUD) which is $600 per month. You seen a $600@month "home" here in Lawrence, George????

Man, there are is a mackdaddy waiting list for housing assitance right here in Lawrence. The Director of the Lawrence Housing Authority is given more than $120k per annum to do exactly what???? They aren't taking applications anymore.....there's already a big ssa waiting list. And we're just on rent....NOT mortgage. Where's the hope? And you want to remove the EITC?????

Again, we live in different worlds. Why are you so dead earnesst about attacking the impoverished when there is so much more to gain by going after Trump and his set....?

I simply don't get it. It's this clear removal from reality that will lead to class/civil war. It's coming, too. Mark my words.....if it hasn't already started. You and I may not be around to see it....thank goodness for that....

Have your computer speakers on and ponder the question: http://www.audiomicro.com/free-x-men-sound-clips-you-know-magneto-s-right-there-s-a-war-coming-download-549711

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Hi Bea. Smart move –asking questions rather than assuming answers.

My comment was to military health care and retirement. I am unaware of any threat to VA care except Mr. A and the "chained CPI" discussed below.

There are two proposals working their way through the cabinet departments.

  1. Increase the cost of TRICARE (military medical insurance) significantly (hundreds of percent). Argument being to convert it to something similar to private group insurance. The data so far suggests that it would be a costly version of private insurance)
  2. Change the military retirement program to defer any pension until age 65 even if the individual was forced out at twenty (YOS) as many many are. It would compensate by allowing for a bulk payment at separation of as much as $30K. This was tried in the nineties and caused a serious retention problem and the Congress went back to the twenty year retirement. In the short term it will have little effect (except equity) as we will be shedding military personnel for several years to come. After that – we shall see.

These initiatives are anything by silent. There has already been testimony on the hill. Whether Congress will buy them or not is unknown at this time. They do potentially save a lot of money. I can not imagine that something with this much impact could be going on in the President’s administration without at least his tacit approval.

Over in the gang of twelve there is a proposal to change to the chained CPI. That would reduce all indexed government programs by about 5 to 10% every ten to twenty years (depends on actual inflation). I do not believe the administration has taken a position on this yet. It does potentially save a lot of money. I call it the dog food proposal. If you substitute dog food for hamburger under this concept there would have been no inflation.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

As with all moves to cut spending to help lower the deficit, I have no doubt that plans on ways to save with military pensions are being discussed. Why not? If teachers are on the chopping block, might as well put all government workers on the block, which includes the military. Since no confirmed proposal on pension cuts has made it through the system and been given the presidential stamp of approval that I am aware of, I don't think it accurate to say that Obama "is pursuing" this course of action. It is, at best, but one of many items being considered as part of the needed government cuts. Only when he says "I want to take this course of action" referring to the military pension cuts and shifts, can it be fair to say he is "pursuing it." Wouldn't you agree?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Suppose you're right, they are dirty, scruffy, unkempt losers. But they are dirty, scruffy, unkempt losers engaging in the Constitutionally protected activity of political free speech. And if nothing else, their fight against apathy is helping to protect your democracy. They are Americans engaging in free speech. Do you really have a problem with that?

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr. A

You kind of simplify the world to fit your own interests. There are two kinds of entitlements.

  1. Those purchased with money or service. Government pensions and health care fit in the latter. SS and Medicare Part A fit in the former.
  2. Resources the government makes available to you because you fit some criteria such as low income, physically handicapped or running a "green plant. These are not purchased with money or service and the individual has no claim on them. They are bestowed by their fellow citizens out of compasion or enlightened self interest.

You seem to be having difficulty comprehending this. Perhaps you should move to Greece where unlimited government largess seems to have been the norm.

Yes give Mr. A all that he wants and tax the cop married to a teacher in NJ “a lot more”; so he can have it. Like it or not Mr. A there are limits on what we can afford. I do remind you that my pension and my health care were elements of a “contract” between the United States and I that included my going to a couple of wars. Are you arguing for our government breaching the contracts made so you can have more?

Alceste 3 years, 1 month ago

Nope. And my pension(s); my 457 (didn't lose a dime due to the very conservative structure); and my social security were all earned too.

Sorry.....at this stage in the game Social Security and Medicare are the working Joe's and Jane's "government pension and health care". They're a RIGHT, not an entitlement. And therein lies the basic and fundamental difference in view points between Moderate and Alceste. I and tens of millions of others made a contract with the government more than 40+ years ago that that stuff would be there for us when our time came.

Right back at you: Perhaps you should move to Yemen where you could really push people around.

Sir, I'm taking nothing from anybody. How is it that your deal with the Devil....in the form of that pension and health benefits are any more sacred than my deal with the same Devil....just on his other side? If that cop and the teacher are in the top 20% of income recipients in the country.....soak 'em. I doubt they are. That's just a fairy tale you dreamed up. I don't "want more"!! I want to retain what I have and not be pushed further down. Here we go again:

As a society, we should be far more concerned about whether most Americans are getting ahead than about the size of the gains at the top. Yet extreme income inequality causes a cultural separation that is unhealthy on its face and corrosive over time. And the most-powerful economic forces of our times will likely continue to concentrate wealth at the top of society and to put more pressure on the middle. It is hard to imagine an adequate answer to the problems we face that doesn’t involve greater redistribution of wealth.

Hatred of the poor is fueled by the middle class's fear of falling during hard times. Americans don't understand how the poor are victimized by a lack of jobs, inefficient schools, and unsafe neighborhoods People ignore the structural issues - jobs leaving, industry becoming more mechanized. Then they point to the poor and ask, 'Why aren't you making it?' "

In hard times, Americans blame the poor.

Sir, you have repeatedly failed to address these remarks about where our Nation SHOULD be headed and focused and an earnest effort to feather your very own nest. Give Mr. L all he wants. He "earned" it. Yes, there are limits on what we can afford. I say a couple of silly ssa land wars in SW Asia are things we can't afford and had no business getting involved with. "Mission Accomplished" indeed.

This point is what really ticks ya....I can sorta tell: It is hard to imagine an adequate answer to the problems we face that doesn’t involve greater redistribution of wealth.

And I remember when it all began: You didn't want your property taxes to go up and I don't want mine to go up either!

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…

I don't want to speak for George, but if I remember from his past blogs he is in favor of tax increases for the rich and tax cuts for the middle - upper middle class (of which he is a part of).

Moderate Responds: Actually the tax cuts were for the middle so that we could ramp up consumption and create jobs - it was conditional as a trade if that was the only way we could get tax increases for the rich. (not draw more resources out of a fragile economy - the Repub argument).

I guess you could expand EIC temporarily so that the non-federal tax paying middle got money (still think that program should be moved to the expense side of the budget)
I see subtlety is lost on the hoard here.

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

beatrice (anonymous) replies…

As with all moves to cut spending to help lower the deficit, I have no doubt that plans on ways to save with military pensions are being discussed. Why not? I

Moderate Responds: How do you define "is"?

First of all education remains primarily a local matter. The Feds have been throwing more and more money to supplement local taxes but they have done it in fits and starts. Money one year withdrawn the next. Causes local governments to hire and fire at essentially the whim of the feds.

I was neither attacking nor defending what is in the works. And no Bea, the way the system works is that these proposals surface in advance of the President’s budget because the system leaks like a sieve.

I have never accepted and will not accept that such major proposals are outside the knowledge of the WH. They may be a straw man to see what resistance develops but SECDEF does not go off and create furor (in the military community) without some cover.

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr. A

Your ramble incoherently. You can certainly define the world as you wish - does not make it accurate.

And you are wrong again. I have argued against property taxes going up faster than inflation which is what our SS goes up. The city has to raise property taxes to maintain levels of service - it could IMHO do so more moderately!!

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

Deec: "it is unlikely that the trillion will be repaid"

Of course it will be repaid - to the banks by the taxpayers. You really don't think banks are stupid enough to lend five-figure amounts on English and 'studies' degrees, do you? The beauty (if you will) of the whole student loan scam is that the government explicitly guarantees the lenders and explicitly denies the borrowers relief through bankruptcy. I was not kidding when I said it was a chain of servitude. Borrow foolishly on an education and you'll likely serve for a lifetime.

You are correct that it is likely to be the next bubble to burst, and it cannot come too quickly for my tastes. Some will argue that students will not be able to afford college without loans. I will point them to the occupiers who cannot afford the loans even with college thrown in.

But, if we're going to be pedantic, "incoherent" does not mean "not understandable." It means "without logical or meaningful connection, disjointed, rambling." There is no logical or meaningful connection between "holding students hostage" and anything else, because no one is holding students hostage. Students are picking up the chains of their servitude voluntarily and demanding bigger and bigger links. There is no logical connection between debt and education being a human right. Debt results from a service one buys with the money of others - and someone must pay. Education is free for the taking, though one must take it.

What the occupiers are truly demanding is that others provide them a service, that the results be recognized by the government, and that a third party pay for it. Then they have the audacity to call this arrangement "a human right." That is easily understood - everyone wants something for nothing.

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Funkdog 1 says: No, your generation is the one that's grown up with a sense of entitlement. You had access to cheap higher education, cheap healthcare, abundant work opportunities, pensions ...

Moderate Responds: Funkdog my first job paid $222 a month. I had an engineering degree.

You are right that the cost of college has gone up more than medical care. Knowing that one should not seek a degree unless they can plan to pay back the loan. A degree is not your right.

Why have college degrees gone up so fast?? Think an exploding faculty with all kinds of courses never dreamed of in my day. Think salaries for faculty. Why have health care costs gone up so fast - think all kinds of medical system improvements. In my day it was fee for service and you only went to a doctor when you were almost on your death bed.

There are plenty of jobs for those prepared for them. Maybe that degree in gender studies just does not have demand. Chemical engineers are really in demand.

Pensions have gone away but matching 401ks have replaced them. At least YOU OWN IT AND WILl NOT SEE THE GOVERNEMNT WITHDRAW YOUR PENSION IN THE END GAME.

Boy do you have a hard life!!??

George Lippencott 3 years, 1 month ago

Then you pay for most of it - it is your own advancement you are seeking.

There are too many choices. Too many degrees that hardly anybody wants to hire. Too much research in areas that are of marginal value.

fancy80 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm wondering if maybe the whole college thing shouldn't be reconfigured. There are many occupations that don't really require a four year degree. I work with someone in an Information Services type of job. They are trying to finish up so they have a degree. The two classes he is taking now are: Nutrition and Family and Marriage. I think there has to be a better way than taking all these general courses in order to be a programmer. Unfortunately, it seems there is a stigma attached to tech schools. I think a revamping of college in general might be in order to lower the cost of obtaining a meaningful education that hopefully leads to a meaningful career.

fancy80 3 years, 1 month ago

And might I add that lowering the amount one pays for student loans does nothing towards lowering the cost of higher education. Once again, it seems our President is not seeing the big picture. Instead of lowering the cost of Healthcare, he was hellbent of lowering the cost of Insurance Premiums (which is only PART of the problem). Now he is focused on lowering the amount of what a person pays for student loans, when he should be focused on lowering the cost of higher education in general.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.