The NRA, AARP and other organization have demonstrated where the true power lies. It is not in dollars donated, it is in being able to deliver millions of motivated voters to the polls. The NRA has 4 million members, the AARP 40 million,... one would think the 99% could manager something in that range.
Vote out egregious politicians regardless of party or platform.
Move from irresponsible banks to responsible (usually smaller) banks and credit unions.
Buy products from corporation that manufacture domestically, consider the environment, etc.
I'm for all of the above. In particular the latter. I think the meme that CEOs run things is particularly ill informed. CEOs follow profits, they don't care where things are made, they are not pro or anti environment, etc. They will go in any direction that gets them their sale. If consumers did not prefer low prices over domestic manufacture there would not be an off shoring trend.
The 99% have the power, over both politicians and corporation, via the votes they cast and whose goods and services they purchase. The problem lies in the choices of voters and consumers. This whole notion that we are victims of the politicians and corporations is a massive exercise in denial of our own responsibility.
The campers are acting like the 1%. Self indulgent, acting however they feel, believing they are entitled, believing they are above the law, expecting others to pay for the costs that they generate, etc.
Camping is not protesting. The city has said the park is open 24/7 and people can protest there. The owners of the park have welcomed protesters. The only thing being prohibited is camping out. The 99% would show up, protest, carry signs, shout, etc... and then go home or get a room when they tire, and then repeat the process.
OWS has made dozens of good points, if you actually read the signs, blogs, notes or anything of their movements they have quite a few things that are very specifically called for. End of corporates being considered persons, end to lobyism, allowing taxing on the wealthy, regulation of banks etc... If you look at the actual movement and the actual protestors, you see more or less a 50/50 of people carrying messages, and people trying to draw attention. The problem is the media likes to focus purely on the attention grabbers, and cut out the people with a message, and then make the statement "It seems like they don't have a message to give".
And whose fault is that? With no organization, no clear organizational message, no organizational spokespeople... these "attention grabbers" are every bit "actual" members of and "actual" spokespeople for the movement. How can anyone be so naive not to expect that the media would focus on the more "interesting" individuals?
Americans are completely and utterly blind to the mis-deeds of their politicians as well as the abuse of their rights by said politicians
Not at all. Americans as individuals are mostly POWERLESS to do anything about the misdeeds. About the only power they have is where they spend their money.
Bull. Americans have power over both politicians and corporations, they sadly choose not to use that power.
It is still one person one vote. Votes are the true currency of politics, not money. Money is just one of various tools to influence people. "Occupy" wants the 99% to move from mega banks to credit unions. In a similar manner the 99% could vote against any politician who egregiously enriches corporations at the people's expense. Much like you seem to be advocating that consumers avoid Goldman Sachs, etc. The problem is that people will not vote against these politicians, they will let themselves be swayed by party loyalty, party platform, etc. This is what prevents change. Change will only come about when politicians believe there will be no loyal base when they egregiously vote against the people's interest, that there will be punitive voting for the other major party's candidate. Note some protest vote for a 3rd party but throwing out the incumbent.
You want change, this is what you need to do, no party loyalty if a candidate crosses a line.
Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)
You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election. http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html
You think it's "a bit excessive"? Hell, in what kind of country news coverage is forbidden? Next time I'll hear about critics to China, I'll talk about this event!!!
The last time China cleared an area of protesters they used the Army and lethal lead (w/ steel core) bullets. Please compare that to police with tear gas, bean bags and rubber bullets.
congrats, you just violated the espionage act in every way that bradley manning did. i hope you don't receive life in prison. if they strip you naked in prison, look up this organization in the phonebook: "ACLU".
Its only like Manning if the poster is in the Chinese Army.
No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?
Oops. I forgot. China Telecom must also turn over the designs of their products to their US partners. This will allow for better adaptation and localization to the US market. Another win-win for everyone right?
No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?
Not really, there was already a shift underway at the time the Voting Rights Act was put into play. The idea that we were all horrible racist assholes until the government came along and told us we had to get along is a very skewed view of history, and dramatically downplays the struggle that many Americans undertook for years prior to the Voting Rights Act.
What people say in a gallop poll and what they vote for in the privacy of the voting booth are two very different things, especially when honesty would identify a person as having some sort of prejudice. Note that in *liberal* California the legalization of gay marriage was voted down in very recent history.
What's wrong with making money off Jobs' death? Apple made a ton, and so did his biographer. Apple even timed the release of the iPhone to it to maximize exposure (and profits).
Wow, you came so close to making a somewhat rational post... then you had to toss it all away with the Apple timed the release of the iPhone thing.
What about someone who gets $150,000 in loans just to teach?
$150K?
There was a similar thread a few weeks ago. IIRC the average state university tuition, room and board is $14K a year. We are still, although just barely, at the point where a student can work part-time during a semester and full-time during the summer to graduate debt free. Or they can be less aggressive with work, or be less fortunate finding work, and only borrow smaller amount and graduate with less debt.
The truth is that it is still possible to work 25-30 hour per week and pay for a state university. $14K or so per year for tuition, room and board came up in a related post weeks ago. Yes, you will have give up going to many, but not all, of the parties. Yes, we have gotten to the point where it seems just barely possible to put yourself through school and graduate debt free.
Then again, there is a middle ground. Work part time to greatly minimize what you need to borrow. You don't necessarily have to graduate debt free, maybe graduate with $30K of debt rather than $60K.
Many, many, many people saw the economic collapse.
A newsletter from an economics professor and CNBC financial commentator:
"Thursday, February 28, 2008...
Any talking head who tells you that this market is a buying opportunity has his/her head screwed on backwards. The only buys are the kind of value plays that the likes of Buffett are pulling off. That is, it is very much a stock picker’s market.
Recession plus inflation plus a credit crisis plus a softening European economy plus an inflation-plagued Chinese economy plus Russian strong-arming in natural gas plus two leading presidential candidates who are ignoramuses on economics plus a rising long bond in the face of Fed rate cuts does not a bull market make."
http://www.peternavarro.com/2008.02.01_arch.html
That is his oldest newsletter but I understand he was telling his economics students to "get out" of the market in fall 2007. Plus he was showing them a whole bunch of historical indicators that were all pointing in the wrong direction.
And what about the parking garage level that is entirely reserved for a swap meet type environment with the most blatant pirated and fake goods? Some of this stuff has already been moving from high visibility areas to more "underground" venues. All the locals know where to go.
Been there, done that. The article you originally cited offered that link when they stated $11,034 as tuition. Notice they misquoted that figure as tuition rather than tuition+room+board. Perhaps that is the source of your misunderstanding.
The second column (in state public institution and required fees) is without room and board, which for for years is 11338 for 2006-2007 school year. The first column is with room and board, and comes out to 19232. I must have typo'd the original number, sorry about that.
Actually you are having the "typo" right now. Originally you quoted the tuition+room+board *public* university figures, now you are quoting all universities and including private into the mix. Note that your original claim was specifically about public schools. If you scroll down to the public section you will find the number is $14,203.
Why 14K rather than 11K, well you have also moved from the all institutions column to the university only column. This ignores the other 4 year schools, colleges presumably, and the 2 year schools. If you look at the all institutions column you will find the exact number you had quoted previously. You did not previously quote the second tuition only group.
So the only thing you can really claim is that 2 years schools should not be included. So lets rerun the number with that figure from the tuition+room+board all-4-year public institution column: $12,805.
Quite doable (approx 5 hours mon-fri and 8 on sat). Note this includes one day off a week and two weeks vacation per year. Again I found up to 30 not a hardship while earning a BS in Computer Science. I'd say 34 hours at a job may be diligent hard work but I don't think we are in hardship territory.
Note again that we discarded 2 year schools. I accepted this for the sake of argument but in reality I think doing so is a bit disingenuous. In reality a person who is going to have a hard time paying for a 4 year school may very well, or should, do their general ed classes at the 2 year as much as possible. Here in California the community colleges are excellent at making all the general ed type classes meet the transfer requirements of all the California state colleges and universities. Going this route would allow a student to graduate some number of quarters earlier and/or knock 4 units of coursework off many quarters.
You forgot to include FICA and social security, and federal/state/local taxes. That could consume up to a third of each 7.35 hour (excessive but just for estimation). This also relies on the student not having transportation costs or anything, so basically living up the street from a school. Otherwise you have to include gas, car insurance, car. The cost for room and board brings it up to just shy of 19.5k in 2007 costs, so it'd be well over 20k a year now.
Nope. If you follow the GP's links the $11,034 includes room and board. Also, educational expenses are tax deductible at both the federal and state level. I think social security is part of fica, 6.2% of social security and 1.45% for medicare.
Sounds like government is at fault here for guaranteeing the loans.
Ding ding ding!
Companies do that which will make them money. When a loan is backed by the government, there's more profit in making the loan than making sure it is paid off.
Dong, dong, dong.
Most of that Trillion ain't government backed . . . but student loan laws have been made lot tougher, even total bankruptcy doesn't erase the debt.
Wrong, that is government backed. What you describe is merely the mechanism by which the *government* guaranteed the loan.
I really don't understand this attitude. The government puts a program in place that tries to enable everyone, regardless of circumstances, to get an education. This seems to me to be solid public policy - we need an educated populace to advance our society.
The detail you are missing is that "regardless of circumstance" includes expected ability to afford credit and loans. For example banks were quite willing to extend credit and loans to those studying medicine, law, engineering, science and the like but not to those studying the liberal arts. Guess who stepped in and forced the banks to not discriminate based upon area of study, and thereby expected ability to afford that credit?
You are correct with respect to noble intentions, however there was a failure to consider unintended consequences. A well intended program actually doing more harm than good.
Slashdot Mirror
The NRA, AARP and other organization have demonstrated where the true power lies. It is not in dollars donated, it is in being able to deliver millions of motivated voters to the polls. The NRA has 4 million members, the AARP 40 million, ... one would think the 99% could manager something in that range.
If by "continues", you mean "is (albeit slowly) discontinuing".
No, I mean continue. For example the Iraqi withdrawal is precisely, to the month, on the original Bush administration timetable.
Vote out egregious politicians regardless of party or platform.
Move from irresponsible banks to responsible (usually smaller) banks and credit unions.
Buy products from corporation that manufacture domestically, consider the environment, etc.
I'm for all of the above. In particular the latter. I think the meme that CEOs run things is particularly ill informed. CEOs follow profits, they don't care where things are made, they are not pro or anti environment, etc. They will go in any direction that gets them their sale. If consumers did not prefer low prices over domestic manufacture there would not be an off shoring trend.
The 99% have the power, over both politicians and corporation, via the votes they cast and whose goods and services they purchase. The problem lies in the choices of voters and consumers. This whole notion that we are victims of the politicians and corporations is a massive exercise in denial of our own responsibility.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)
You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election.
http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html
I think you misread me - I don't like anybody who has been in the President's office in my lifetime. I dislike some more than others...
Who said you liked anyone? All that was said was that you misquoted a statistic, or got the subject of a statistical pattern mixed up.
The campers are acting like the 1%. Self indulgent, acting however they feel, believing they are entitled, believing they are above the law, expecting others to pay for the costs that they generate, etc.
... and then go home or get a room when they tire, and then repeat the process.
Camping is not protesting. The city has said the park is open 24/7 and people can protest there. The owners of the park have welcomed protesters. The only thing being prohibited is camping out. The 99% would show up, protest, carry signs, shout, etc
OWS has made dozens of good points, if you actually read the signs, blogs, notes or anything of their movements they have quite a few things that are very specifically called for. End of corporates being considered persons, end to lobyism, allowing taxing on the wealthy, regulation of banks etc... If you look at the actual movement and the actual protestors, you see more or less a 50/50 of people carrying messages, and people trying to draw attention. The problem is the media likes to focus purely on the attention grabbers, and cut out the people with a message, and then make the statement "It seems like they don't have a message to give".
And whose fault is that? With no organization, no clear organizational message, no organizational spokespeople ... these "attention grabbers" are every bit "actual" members of and "actual" spokespeople for the movement. How can anyone be so naive not to expect that the media would focus on the more "interesting" individuals?
Americans are completely and utterly blind to the mis-deeds of their politicians as well as the abuse of their rights by said politicians
Not at all. Americans as individuals are mostly POWERLESS to do anything about the misdeeds. About the only power they have is where they spend their money.
Bull. Americans have power over both politicians and corporations, they sadly choose not to use that power.
It is still one person one vote. Votes are the true currency of politics, not money. Money is just one of various tools to influence people. "Occupy" wants the 99% to move from mega banks to credit unions. In a similar manner the 99% could vote against any politician who egregiously enriches corporations at the people's expense. Much like you seem to be advocating that consumers avoid Goldman Sachs, etc. The problem is that people will not vote against these politicians, they will let themselves be swayed by party loyalty, party platform, etc. This is what prevents change. Change will only come about when politicians believe there will be no loyal base when they egregiously vote against the people's interest, that there will be punitive voting for the other major party's candidate. Note some protest vote for a 3rd party but throwing out the incumbent.
You want change, this is what you need to do, no party loyalty if a candidate crosses a line.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)
You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election.
http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Why? Do you see a park full of people protesting the war policy that Bush started and Obama continues?
You think it's "a bit excessive"? Hell, in what kind of country news coverage is forbidden? Next time I'll hear about critics to China, I'll talk about this event!!!
The last time China cleared an area of protesters they used the Army and lethal lead (w/ steel core) bullets. Please compare that to police with tear gas, bean bags and rubber bullets.
congrats, you just violated the espionage act in every way that bradley manning did. i hope you don't receive life in prison. if they strip you naked in prison, look up this organization in the phonebook: "ACLU".
Its only like Manning if the poster is in the Chinese Army.
China Telecom Mulls Entry Into US Telecoms Market
No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?
Oops. I forgot. China Telecom must also turn over the designs of their products to their US partners. This will allow for better adaptation and localization to the US market. Another win-win for everyone right?
China Telecom Mulls Entry Into US Telecoms Market
No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?
Not really, there was already a shift underway at the time the Voting Rights Act was put into play. The idea that we were all horrible racist assholes until the government came along and told us we had to get along is a very skewed view of history, and dramatically downplays the struggle that many Americans undertook for years prior to the Voting Rights Act.
What people say in a gallop poll and what they vote for in the privacy of the voting booth are two very different things, especially when honesty would identify a person as having some sort of prejudice. Note that in *liberal* California the legalization of gay marriage was voted down in very recent history.
What's wrong with making money off Jobs' death? Apple made a ton, and so did his biographer. Apple even timed the release of the iPhone to it to maximize exposure (and profits).
Wow, you came so close to making a somewhat rational post ... then you had to toss it all away with the Apple timed the release of the iPhone thing.
France and Germany are economic powerhouses, and both of them have universal health care.
You really are living in the past.
..." ..."
"... France has lived beyond its means, for nakedly political reasons, for longer than most people alive can remember
"... This would be bad enough if the French enjoyed German-style economic health: but they do not
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2037509/French-banking-crisis-Frances-hour-reckoning.html
What about someone who gets $150,000 in loans just to teach?
$150K?
There was a similar thread a few weeks ago. IIRC the average state university tuition, room and board is $14K a year. We are still, although just barely, at the point where a student can work part-time during a semester and full-time during the summer to graduate debt free. Or they can be less aggressive with work, or be less fortunate finding work, and only borrow smaller amount and graduate with less debt.
The truth is that it is still possible to work 25-30 hour per week and pay for a state university. $14K or so per year for tuition, room and board came up in a related post weeks ago. Yes, you will have give up going to many, but not all, of the parties. Yes, we have gotten to the point where it seems just barely possible to put yourself through school and graduate debt free.
Then again, there is a middle ground. Work part time to greatly minimize what you need to borrow. You don't necessarily have to graduate debt free, maybe graduate with $30K of debt rather than $60K.
It's a right that people in other parts of the developed world take for granted.
I advise to not attempt this argument. The that's-how-Europe-does-it-and-they-are-economically-healthy argument just doesn't work the way it used to.
Many, many, many people saw the economic collapse.
A newsletter from an economics professor and CNBC financial commentator: ...
Any talking head who tells you that this market is a buying opportunity has his/her head screwed on backwards. The only buys are the kind of value plays that the likes of Buffett are pulling off. That is, it is very much a stock picker’s market.
Recession plus inflation plus a credit crisis plus a softening European economy plus an inflation-plagued Chinese economy plus Russian strong-arming in natural gas plus two leading presidential candidates who are ignoramuses on economics plus a rising long bond in the face of Fed rate cuts does not a bull market make."
http://www.peternavarro.com/2008.02.01_arch.html
"Thursday, February 28, 2008
That is his oldest newsletter but I understand he was telling his economics students to "get out" of the market in fall 2007. Plus he was showing them a whole bunch of historical indicators that were all pointing in the wrong direction.
... remove fake goods from Chinese streets ...
And what about the parking garage level that is entirely reserved for a swap meet type environment with the most blatant pirated and fake goods? Some of this stuff has already been moving from high visibility areas to more "underground" venues. All the locals know where to go.
Psst, I am GP ;) The source is http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_320.asp.
Been there, done that. The article you originally cited offered that link when they stated $11,034 as tuition. Notice they misquoted that figure as tuition rather than tuition+room+board. Perhaps that is the source of your misunderstanding.
The second column (in state public institution and required fees) is without room and board, which for for years is 11338 for 2006-2007 school year. The first column is with room and board, and comes out to 19232. I must have typo'd the original number, sorry about that.
Actually you are having the "typo" right now. Originally you quoted the tuition+room+board *public* university figures, now you are quoting all universities and including private into the mix. Note that your original claim was specifically about public schools. If you scroll down to the public section you will find the number is $14,203.
Why 14K rather than 11K, well you have also moved from the all institutions column to the university only column. This ignores the other 4 year schools, colleges presumably, and the 2 year schools. If you look at the all institutions column you will find the exact number you had quoted previously. You did not previously quote the second tuition only group.
So the only thing you can really claim is that 2 years schools should not be included. So lets rerun the number with that figure from the tuition+room+board all-4-year public institution column: $12,805.
7.35 * 40 * 20 = 5880
12805 - 5880 = 6925
6925 / 7.35 = 942.17
942.17 / 30 = 31.41
31.41 * 1.0765 = 33.81
Quite doable (approx 5 hours mon-fri and 8 on sat). Note this includes one day off a week and two weeks vacation per year. Again I found up to 30 not a hardship while earning a BS in Computer Science. I'd say 34 hours at a job may be diligent hard work but I don't think we are in hardship territory.
Note again that we discarded 2 year schools. I accepted this for the sake of argument but in reality I think doing so is a bit disingenuous. In reality a person who is going to have a hard time paying for a 4 year school may very well, or should, do their general ed classes at the 2 year as much as possible. Here in California the community colleges are excellent at making all the general ed type classes meet the transfer requirements of all the California state colleges and universities. Going this route would allow a student to graduate some number of quarters earlier and/or knock 4 units of coursework off many quarters.
You forgot to include FICA and social security, and federal/state/local taxes. That could consume up to a third of each 7.35 hour (excessive but just for estimation). This also relies on the student not having transportation costs or anything, so basically living up the street from a school. Otherwise you have to include gas, car insurance, car. The cost for room and board brings it up to just shy of 19.5k in 2007 costs, so it'd be well over 20k a year now.
Nope. If you follow the GP's links the $11,034 includes room and board. Also, educational expenses are tax deductible at both the federal and state level. I think social security is part of fica, 6.2% of social security and 1.45% for medicare.
6.2% + 1.45% = 7.65%
23.37 * 1.0765 = 25.15 hours per week
Sounds like government is at fault here for guaranteeing the loans.
Ding ding ding!
Companies do that which will make them money. When a loan is backed by the government, there's more profit in making the loan than making sure it is paid off.
Dong, dong, dong.
Most of that Trillion ain't government backed . . . but student loan laws have been made lot tougher, even total bankruptcy doesn't erase the debt.
Wrong, that is government backed. What you describe is merely the mechanism by which the *government* guaranteed the loan.
I really don't understand this attitude. The government puts a program in place that tries to enable everyone, regardless of circumstances, to get an education. This seems to me to be solid public policy - we need an educated populace to advance our society.
The detail you are missing is that "regardless of circumstance" includes expected ability to afford credit and loans. For example banks were quite willing to extend credit and loans to those studying medicine, law, engineering, science and the like but not to those studying the liberal arts. Guess who stepped in and forced the banks to not discriminate based upon area of study, and thereby expected ability to afford that credit?
You are correct with respect to noble intentions, however there was a failure to consider unintended consequences. A well intended program actually doing more harm than good.