Occupy Wall Street

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
382

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]Viking13 wrote:
Lol looks like I should insert my foot in my mouth about the whole exxon mobile thing. However, the main point I was trying to illustrate isn’t diminished just because one corporate giant actually pays it’s taxes one way or another. Widespread corruption and systemic greed (the epicenter of which can be found on Wall Street) brought down the world economy and it can only be fixed by changing how we do business. Some essential steps are eliminating the Fed or at least regulating it with extreme prejudice, ending corporate personhood and thus overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, not allowing any more bailouts - if a company is insolvent it deserves to fail and start over just like any other business - and the crooks need to be held accountable. Also, regulating successful businesses is a must if we don’t want the crash of 2008 to happen again.

Simply protesting obviously won’t completely solve all these problems (or even a single one of them for that matter). However, people need to feel before they see, and protests can provide a wake up call and can be a good launching pad to making real changes.[/quote]

I will say it again, go protest the White House then if those are your goals, protesting at wall street wont do jack shit. Wall street didnt issue the bailouts, the white house did. Wall street didnt write a jacked up loophole ridden tax code, the IRS did.[/quote]

I would go even further and say we should protest Congress as they are the ones that truly issued the bailouts and have written the enormous volumes of regulations that the IRS is charged with upholding.

383

I started working construction at fifteen, summers and holidays, working as a iron worker and rodbuster. Kept up my grades and took advanced classes. Attempted grant and loan money when time came and was told my parents made too much. Made was the operative word, because my family’s business took it on the chin when the oil depression hit Houston in the mid 80’s and they lost just about everything. I laid out a year and continued to work full time as a rodbuster and saved every penny to put with what I had saved to that point. Entered college the next year, and immediately began working two to three jobs at a time. I delivered furniture during the day, I did repo’s nights and weekends, and bounced at the local clubs. And I did not miss a minute of the party life either. I ran low on funds and had to drop out a semester twice before I graduated. I did not bitch, I just did it.

Years after graduation I even went back to school to get my MBA. I did it while working over 60 hours a week, with one baby at home and one on the way. I saved up the money to pay for it before I went.

I have never asked shit from anyone, or taken much shit from anyone for that matter. Raised by a single mom who was a clerk at a convenience store till she remarried when I was in my teens. It never occurred to me that I was owed something or that I should be given anything other than an opportunity.

This is where I am going to loose some of my conservative friends. I always had an opportunity. If I was willing to bust my ass, someone was always more than willing to hire me and pay me well. Matter of fact, I do not recall actually going out and looking for more than one or two jobs ever. They always found me.

This, I believe, is a very big difference between the world I faced and the one today. The jobs that I did as a fifteen year old would probably bring an employer up for child endangerment charges today. Hanging off the side of a 43 story building, unhooking columns from a tower crane and only supported by a couple of double twist ties at the bottom…no way that would happen today. But twenty five to thirty years ago I was getting paid $10 to $12 an hour to do this. I used to walk into projects with nothing but a clipboard and a furniture dolly and come out with big screen TV’s and sectionals. And I got paid ten percent of original value if i did it. I made good money bouncing and got free beer as we were cleaning up. Bottom line is that even though most would not even think of doing the things I did today, I still had the opportunity to do them.

Lets take it a step further. Me and a room mate rented a little house on 225 1/2 Elm street. It was built at the turn of the century in the oldest town in Texas. It was a wood frame house elevated on blocks. It had a kitchen stove and sink tucked into the corner of a make shift living room. One bath and two bedrooms. No central heat or air. It had a single gas valve in the living room floor and an old gas heater that had to be from the thirties at least. You had to watch about kicking the hose loose and killing your self. I popped up in the attic one time and was surprised to see that it was wired with old bare copper wire that was strung using old ceramic insulators. I just grinned and went back down. I cut a deal on an ac unit that I had repoed and we were in business. I think we paid about $225 a month for this shit hole and I loved every friggin minute I lived there. I never remember a late night guest having a problem with it either.

I could buy Roman noodles 20 for a dollar and cans of Ranch style beans four for a dollar. Two packs of noodles to one can made a hell of a meal. I could find beer deals where a case of Keystone light was under $8.

I do not believe that any codes would allow the living combinations that I described today. I am not arguing if that is good or bad, it just is. Try to find rent at less than $150 a month today. Try $550. Good luck.

Yes, I will agree that most of the kids today are pussies. But I will say in the same breath that they had little choice in the matter. Between the nanny state and Heliocopter parents that hovered on the edge of their lives willing to swoop in and save little Billie or Susie from the consequences of there ever wrong action, they have learned nothing else.

Today you cannot decide for yourself if a job is too dangerous or not, the state does.
Today you cannot decide to lover your rental standards for a lower rent, the state does.

Everyone has enough bubble wrap around them that they cannot get out of there own way.

Yes, they should be in Washington, but they should be on Wall Street as well. They are just realizing the grand fucking that uncle Ben, Uncle Hank, and all the cousins prepared for them that they will be paying for for years.

And they are getting pissed.

Good for them. And as they get more pissed just maybe they will start to align their focus a little better to to deeper level of betrayal going on around them.

Truth is, I am not sure what all you other guys are watching, but I see a lot of good smart kids missed in with the stoned douche bags. Those are the ones I am rooting for. Those are the ones I want to see win.

Give them Hell kids!

384

Brookfield Office Management Says Occupy Wall Street Protesters Can’t Bring Sleeping Bags, Tents And More Back Into The Park After The Cleaning « CBS New York
http://www.google.com/gwt/x?noimg=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewyork.cbslocal.com%2F2011%2F10%2F13%2Fmayor-michael-bloomberg-says-zuccotti-park-will-be-cleaned-up-friday%2F

385

[quote]benos4752 wrote:
Brookfield Office Management Says Occupy Wall Street Protesters Can’t Bring Sleeping Bags, Tents And More Back Into The Park After The Cleaning Ã?« CBS New York
http://www.google.com/gwt/x?noimg=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewyork.cbslocal.com%2F2011%2F10%2F13%2Fmayor-michael-bloomberg-says-zuccotti-park-will-be-cleaned-up-friday%2F

[/quote]
Yes, it is decision time. They will either have to go away or dig in.

If they dig in it could get real ugly.

I pray for both sides in this conflict.

386

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< But I don’t have a problem with third party payers, as long as we these payers are insurance platforms, not health care platforms. Spreading risk over a pool is a good idea. And I am fine with people having to pay more for more of their own “nuts-and-bolts” medical treatments, and leave the insurance to cover “unforeseen calamity” - i.e., the catastrophic events. >>>[/quote]I’m pretty much onboard with the rest of your post. If ya get chance throw me some details on this part if you would.

387

All those who oppose the protests (mostly the “I’m better than those whiny brats!” assholes) keep saying that everything would be fine if everybody just worked harder.

And maybe its true. Maybe if every protester, if everyone who is unemployed or underemployed, just worked more and spent less, they’d all be ok.

But look at the trends that have put so many people in those positions: wealth continues to consolidate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population. People are working longer hours and getting less time off. Most households require both parents to work. College tuitions keep rising. Students need to get deeper into debt to get a degree. More jobs refuse to hire anyone without a degree.

So lets say everyone takes your advice and “just works harder” - and all these trends continue because there appears to be no problems - what do you think will happen?

388

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But look at the trends that have put so many people in those positions: wealth continues to consolidate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population. People are working longer hours and getting less time off. Most households require both parents to work. College tuitions keep rising. Students need to get deeper into debt to get a degree. More jobs refuse to hire anyone without a degree.
[/quote]

And this is the argument that makes no sense to me. My family since they’ve come to this country have been farmers (few exceptions; uncle that went to college on GI bill and went into real estate; cousin who became a cop; etc). Every generation has worked our asses off, some for other people, some running their own farms (my dad was finally able to go into business for himself a few years ago after working for family or others for 45 years). We’ve never been rich, but never been left wanting. My grandpas been working his whole life. Went bankrupt a couple times, but now, in his 70s goes on vacation with my grandma all the time, almost always to Europe. Bought a house for the family in Tahoe. Growing up, we were always able to go on vacation at least once a year, usually after a harvest. My mom chose to work because she got bored with me and my brother at school.

I was out in the sun and the dirt, working my ass off starting at 14. Learned to save early. After high school, got job training and went to work so I could pay for my own school. Now I’m a junior at 24. Do I wish I was a little further along right now, it would be nice, yeah. But I am debt free. Living simply, not wasting money, I could go almost two years without having to work if I chose to, but I like having the extra money to keep saving (plus, snowboard season is approaching.

Nothing you can say will ever convince me that picking a goal and working your ass off to achieve it is not the answer. My family has gotten to where we are by busting our asses. We’ve never blamed anyone but ourselves (and tax hungry democrats) for any of our problems.

I think a great question was asked earlier. How many of the kids out there wanting free shit would give up their iPhone data plans to pay for their own healthcare? How many whining about loan debt would have been willing to put off college for a few years and live below their means so they wouldn’t have to take out a loan? Judging off solely what I’ve seen since starting at college, none of them, they’d rather have the government tax those working their asses off so they can have it for free.

389

if they were consistent :

-conservatives and libertarians would equally reject both socialization of profits and the socialization of loss.
-liberals would equally reject both the socialization of loss and the socialization of profits.
-socialists would support both.

but consistency is a scarce ressource these days.

All i see is populism under different disguise and slightly different subjects of disgust.

390

[quote]kamui wrote:
if they were consistent :

-conservatives and libertarians would equally reject both socialization of profits and the socialization of loss.
-liberals would equally reject both the socialization of loss and the socialization of profits.
-socialists would support both.

but consistency is a scarce ressource these days.

All i see is populism under different disguise and slightly different subjects of disgust. [/quote]

What!?!

Which libertarian pleaded for handouts?

We will deal with him accordingly.

391

accordingly ?
you will non violently buy his silence ?

392

[quote]kamui wrote:

accordingly ?
you will non violently buy his silence ? [/quote]

At the very least we will revoke his decoder ring privileges and he can no longer come to our treehouse.

393

Ok. it’s a pretty good start.
:slight_smile:

395

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

We’ve never blamed anyone but ourselves (and tax hungry democrats) for any of our problems. [/quote]

Thats about the part where I stop paying attention. Its all the democrats, man.

396

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But look at the trends that have put so many people in those positions: wealth continues to consolidate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population.[/quote]

Agreed on this.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. I don’t most households are required to as a matter of fact. I think many are required to in order to keep up with the lifestyle they want.

I think a good number of households could downsize their consumption, go cheaper, abandon some luxuries and not have to have both parents work. I keep harping on this, but it’s such an easy symbol - look at the number of working-class and middle-class people who have smartphones. Smartphones, with expensive data plans. How many of them actually need a smartphone? Why wouldn’t a basic flip-phone with no data plan work?

That’s symbolic of the problem. I know plenty of families where only one parent works who drive modest cars, live in modest neighborhoods, and forego many luxuries that many now consider “needs”.

Take that up with teachers’ unions and the professoriate who haven’t justified their lavish income hikes in years (and who delegate the real work to undepaid adjunct professors).

See above - galloping inflation makes this necessary to a certain extent. But, on the other hand, students tend to take out way more than they actually need. Again, there needs to be accountability on both sides, and if high school weren’t such an inefficient provision of education, a number of jobs wouldn’t require a college education - they could take a well-educated high-school graduate and have them apprentice.

Good things - once the hangover wears off and people realize that the heady days of living beyond their means was never sustainable and the deleveraging that results, we’ll see a steadier, more balanced middle class.

397

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

We’ve never blamed anyone but ourselves (and tax hungry democrats) for any of our problems. [/quote]

Thats about the part where I stop paying attention. Its all the democrats, man. [/quote]

Good thing it was towards the end :slight_smile:

And mostly, I said it jest, but not completely. Who are we supposed to blame? So often, when they talk about taxing the rich, my dad falls into the category based on what they claim to be a rich income. But so much of what dad makes and reports goes right back into his business that his take home every year is well less than $100,000. Who’s calling for tax increases? Democrats.

…see what I meant?

398

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Take that up with teachers’ unions and the professoriate who haven’t justified their lavish income hikes in years (and who delegate the real work to undepaid adjunct professors).[/quote]

Only area I’d disagree with you. I’d say blame administrators more. I know a lot of wasteful spending goes on at colleges. Plus, earlier this year, here in CA, the state board, in the same meeting, voted to both raise tuition and give huge raises to a few high level administrators…yet haven’t seen a single protestor talk about this…only the greedy bankers…go figure…

399

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

In other words, I like the idea of insurance actually being insurance, as opposed to just a shared costs pool for health care provision. Insurance companies pay for all sorts of “nuts and bolts” medical procedures, etc. that are not in response to some unforeseen unpleasant event. That’s ok, to a certain extent - insurance companies have a vested interested in preventing the unforeseen catastrophes - but they pay (in my view) too much of this that should come straight from the consumer’s pocket.

This is why I like the concept of high-deductible plans. It lets insurance be more like insurance, forces consumers to be wiser in how they consume health care resources, and generally has a positive effect on the price of health care (by diminishing overconsumption, which is what we do now).

The problem, of course, is that many consumers simply will not go pay for “nuts and bolts” procedures and checkups out of their own time and money, and so they miss out on opportunities to prevent big health catastrophes down the road that could have been more easily avoided (and insurance companies don’t like this). So, in addition to a high-deductible plan, I think insurance companies should mandate - as a part of their contract - that the insured agrees to go see a doctor regularly on his/her own nickel. In other words, if you want insurance, you have to earn the right to it by taking some responsibiilty for your own health.

That said, all this is just purely academic if American citizens continue to punt all responsibility for their health care to the magical “system” of pills and procedures.

400

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

Only area I’d disagree with you. I’d say blame administrators more. I know a lot of wasteful spending goes on at colleges. Plus, earlier this year, here in CA, the state board, in the same meeting, voted to both raise tuition and give huge raises to a few high level administrators…yet haven’t seen a single protestor talk about this…only the greedy bankers…go figure…[/quote]

Absolutely agreed. Administrators are the worst offenders in the racket of “higher education”. Unquestionably. Good point.

401

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But look at the trends that have put so many people in those positions: wealth continues to consolidate to a smaller and smaller portion of the population.[/quote]

Agreed on this.

I don’t necessarily agree with this. I don’t most households are required to as a matter of fact. I think many are required to in order to keep up with the lifestyle they want.

I think a good number of households could downsize their consumption, go cheaper, abandon some luxuries and not have to have both parents work. I keep harping on this, but it’s such an easy symbol - look at the number of working-class and middle-class people who have smartphones. Smartphones, with expensive data plans. How many of them actually need a smartphone? Why wouldn’t a basic flip-phone with no data plan work?

That’s symbolic of the problem. I know plenty of families where only one parent works who drive modest cars, live in modest neighborhoods, and forego many luxuries that many now consider “needs”.

[quote]

Yes, my wife decided she wanted to be home with the kids, we made adjustments, sold our house, before the market crash of course, bought an old farmhouse with some land and made some other changes to our budget and she can stay home with the kids. We sacrificed the luxuries other people want for what we want.

It is all about prioritization.