Occupy Wall Street

[bluefrog]

Keep corporations out of politics!!1!

Ed O.

Did you even bother to read the link? Do you have anything to say about their message?

 

[Ed O]

Did you even bother to read the link? Do you have anything to say about their message?

It's hypocrisy at its finest. It's bitching about the role of corporations even while it voices an opinion AS a corporation.

It, like the Occupiers generally, is a joke.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Gee, what a shock. The lazy do-nothings who are protesting now want their student loans to be wiped away and forgiven. Add in the SEIU's involvement, and it's obvious that this is anything but an organic movement.

As the Wall Street protests grow and expand beyond New York, growing scrutiny of the nascent movement is warranted. What do these folks want? Alongside their ranting about the inequality of incomes, the alleged inordinate power of Wall Street and large corporations, the high level of unemployment, and the like, one policy goal ranks high with most protesters: the forgiveness of student-loan debt. In an informal survey of over 50 protesters in New York last Tuesday, blogger and equity research analyst David Maris found 93 percent of them advocated student-loan forgiveness. An online petition drive advocating student-loan forgiveness has gathered an impressive number of signatures (over 442,000). This is an issue that resonates with many Americans.

Economist Justin Wolfers recently opined that “this is the worst idea ever.” I think it is actually the second-worst idea ever — the worst was the creation of federally subsidized student loans in the first place. Under current law, when the feds (who have basically taken over the student-loan industry) make a loan, the size of the U.S. budget deficit rises and the government borrows additional funds, very often from foreign investors. We are borrowing from the Chinese to finance school attendance by a predominantly middle-class group of Americans.

But that is the tip of the iceberg: Though the ostensible objective of the loan program is to increase the proportion of adult Americans with college degrees, over 40 percent of those pursuing a bachelor’s degree fail to receive one within six years. And default is a growing problem with student loans.

Further, it’s not clear that college imparts much of value to the average student. The typical college student spends less than 30 hours a week, 32 weeks a year, on all academic matters — class attendance, writing papers, studying for exams, etc. They spend about half as much time on school as their parents spend working. If Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa (authors of Academically Adrift) are even roughly correct, today’s students typically learn little in the way of critical learning or writing skills while in school.

Moreover, the student-loan program has proven an ineffective way to achieve one of its initial aims, a goal also of the Wall Street protesters: increasing economic opportunity for the poor. In 1970, when federal student-loan and -grant programs were in their infancy, about 12 percent of college graduates came from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution. While people from all social classes are more likely to go to college today, the poor haven’t gained nearly as much ground as the rich have: With the nation awash in nearly a trillion dollars in student-loan debt (more even than credit-card obligations), the proportion of bachelor’s-degree holders coming from the bottom one-fourth of the income distribution has fallen to around 7 percent.

The sins of the loan program are many. Let’s briefly mention just five.

First, artificially low interest rates are set by the federal government — they are fixed by law rather than market forces. Low-interest-rate mortgage loans resulting from loose Fed policies and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spurred the housing bubble that caused the 2008 financial crisis. Arguably, federal student financial assistance is creating a second bubble in higher education.

...continued at link...

 

[BrianFromWA]

The government could do this the right way if they had the capacity to understand good ideas and make them happen.

They could make it so that they loan money to students who want to get engineering/science/teaching degrees. They could make the loans contingent upon moving to an area that needs economic development or has jobs available(take the low-interest loan, spend the next 4 years doing research in Ames, Iowa or teaching history in Detroit or something). Change majors, the money stops. Get below a 2.0 GPA? The money stops.

I'm not saying that someone who wanted to get a doctorate in oboe-playing couldn't do so. They just can't get a federal loan to pay for it. I'm not saying that it's not important to have people who've studied Ancient Mediterranean Religions at the doctoral level...but the government shouldn't be giving low-interest loans to subsidize it.

Also, I was under the impression that federal student loans were like taxes...you could default, declare bankruptcy, etc., but the feds are still going to get their money from you. Is that not the case?

 

[tlongII]

Personally I'm in favor of federally subsidized student loans. It's the only way many people can go to school. If there is anything the government should help subsidize it's education. I'm definitely NOT in favor of debt forgiveness related to student loans though.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I agree that the government should help subsidize education. But since resources are finite, it should be smart about what it subsidizes.

Paying the same amount of money for a middle-class kid to major in philosophy, vs. paying for a low-income kid to major in, say, chemical engineering or physics or alternative energy engineering seems dumb to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why federally subsidized instead of state subsidized? The only federal funding for college should be grants with strings attached - like Brian mentioned, or GI Bill.

 

[MARIS61]

Median means 1/2 the families make that much or more.

That's half of the definition.

Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount.

In 1969, the entire federal budget was $200B and that paid for Guns and Butter (Vietnam and LBJ's new social programs). Today, the government is 40x that big (4000%). And you want to talk about housing prices going up 300% over the same time PLUS 10 years?

No, I'm talking about income not keeping pace with inflation, and the systematic financial enslavement of the former middle class. Maybe you should start another thread for what you want to talk about.

 

[bluefrog]

It's hypocrisy at its finest. It's bitching about the role of corporations even while it voices an opinion AS a corporation.

Ed O.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying I can't speak about election reform because I'm a voter and participate in the process. Or saying I can't make a call for other father's to take a larger role in raising their kids because I'm father.

Ben & Jerry's isn't perfect (they have paid lobbyist for example) but they have better insight to corporate corruption than you or I do.

 

[bluefrog]

I agree that the government should help subsidize education. But since resources are finite, it should be smart about what it subsidizes.

Paying the same amount of money for a middle-class kid to major in philosophy, vs. paying for a low-income kid to major in, say, chemical engineering or physics or alternative energy engineering seems dumb to me.

I receive federally subsidized student loans and I would not be able to afford school without them. Education is very expensive and costs are increasing with states cutting back on education budgets. My tuition went up $800 a semester due to cuts at the state level. I have been fortunate enough to find work but I can sympathize for the thousands of college grads that can't. Working retail at $8 an hour might help make ends meet but it's not going to pay back the $80,000 (luckily this can be deferred for a long time)

I agree that we need to be smart with grants and loans. Federal funding for STEM may help attract more students to these fields but honestly they are not very attractive majors to most students. The required math classes alone keep most students away. Americans are getting killed in these areas. Half of the people in my program are foreigners and all of them plan to stick around after they graduate.

 

[BrianFromWA]

If you've said before what your major is I apologize for not remembering, but could you say it again?

The latter half is what I'm talking about. I agree that STEM majors are difficult. I agree it sucks to do pages of calc proofs and Laplace transforms rather than party. 80-page wind tunnel lab reports aren't fun. But my point is that if you wanted to major in something other than a) something that is in demand, b) something that the government is pushing (STEM, or even "alternative" stuff if that's what they want to focus on) or c) something that you can use to start your own business and make profitable, then IMO that's your choice and the gov't doesn't owe you an education.

As I said, I have respect for someone that spends 10 years learning everything about an oboe or ancient mediterranean religions. But I don't feel that the government should be spending money on that (even opportunity cost) or even advocating that it's a good idea to do so if you want a career there.

Something I was just thinking about was wondering if state institutions (UW, OSU, etc) should be able to dictate how many students are available in each major. The Naval Academy does that, and ensures that most of the people who graduate do so with engineering degrees, that only a very small number can be pre-med, and that a small percentage can be poli-sci, history, etc.

 

[Ed O]

That's ridiculous. It's like saying I can't speak about election reform because I'm a voter and participate in the process. Or saying I can't make a call for other father's to take a larger role in raising their kids because I'm father.

No it's not. The board members of Ben & Jerry's can act individually to speak out against corporate involvement. You can't split yourself up like B&J's can.

I have no problem with Ben & Jerry's taking the stance they do--even as I find it hypocritical--because I think that corporate entities play an important role in forming a healthy political and economic environment. It is my impression that Occupiers want corporations out of the public debate and out of government.

Ben & Jerry's isn't perfect (they have paid lobbyist for example) but they have better insight to corporate corruption than you or I do.

Their message doesn't limit itself to corporate corruption. Only one of the five bullets mentions it, and things like "higher education" are entirely unrelated as far as I can tell. It's just a grab-bag of liberal messages that seems a crude attempt to curry favor with progressives.

Ed O.

 

[bluefrog]

If you've said before what your major is I apologize for not remembering, but could you say it again?

MS Computer Science

The latter half is what I'm talking about. I agree that STEM majors are difficult. I agree it sucks to do pages of calc proofs and Laplace transforms rather than party. 80-page wind tunnel lab reports aren't fun. But my point is that if you wanted to major in something other than a) something that is in demand, b) something that the government is pushing (STEM, or even "alternative" stuff if that's what they want to focus on) or c) something that you can use to start your own business and make profitable, then IMO that's your choice and the gov't doesn't owe you an education.

Graduating in this economy with debt in the 5 to 6 figure range is scary as hell. I don't agree with absolving student debt but I can sympathies with those who do .

Something I was just thinking about was wondering if state institutions (UW, OSU, etc) should be able to dictate how many students are available in each major. The Naval Academy does that, and ensures that most of the people who graduate do so with engineering degrees, that only a very small number can be pre-med, and that a small percentage can be poli-sci, history, etc.

North Carolina state schools do this. These limits are set by the resources available to teach them, not the demand for any given majors in the "real world". My program tops out at 60 people but so does the history masters program

 

[huevonkiller]

The Tea Party won elections and elected Tea Party candidates. This movement will never do that and they look very disorganized. Also the TP never got arrested at rallies IIRC.

We have no more money to hand out, it is embarrassing what these OW people are running on.

 

[bluefrog]

It is my impression that Occupiers want corporations out of the public debate and out of government.

I'd suggest you do a little research on the movement.

Their message doesn't limit itself to corporate corruption. Only one of the five bullets mentions it, and things like "higher education" are entirely unrelated as far as I can tell. It's just a grab-bag of liberal messages that seems a crude attempt to curry favor with progressives.

Ed O.

I'd argue that four of the five points are related to corporate corruption. The education issue addresses the inequality issue.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Ya know, I have been following this for some time. How about this for a solution. Follow the old USSR system that educated children based upon ability andd forcasted need. All schooling was of no cost. If one excelled in an athletic endevour, then they went to camps for that at no cost to the child or his family.

Hell, lets take this one step further and equlalize all the wealth in this country, socialize medicine and manufacturing..But anyone with half a friggen clue knows how well that worked out.

 

[ABM]

I agree that the government should help subsidize education. But since resources are finite, it should be smart about what it subsidizes.

Paying the same amount of money for a middle-class kid to major in philosophy, vs. paying for a low-income kid to major in, say, chemical engineering or physics or alternative energy engineering seems dumb to me.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's worth a repeat. If it weren't so sad, it would be very funny.....

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915

 

[huevonkiller]

Yeah the Banks got bailed out tough luck. They shouldn't next time.

We're already carrying your worthless behinds and these people need to go hunting for a job instead of panhandling.

 

[Ed O]

I'd suggest you do a little research on the movement.

I'd suggest that there is no centralized movement. Marxists and anarchists and unions are using it as a vessel to rail against the status quo.

I'd argue that four of the five points are related to corporate corruption. The education issue addresses the inequality issue.

Your argument would be a weak one, then. To pin those things on "corporate corruption" is to create a bogeyman of epic proportions. And, in my opinion, it makes you look a little insane.

"We are in an unemployment crisis. Almost 14 million people are unemployed. Nearly 20% of African American men are unemployed. Over 25% of our nation’s youth are unemployed."

"Corporate corruption" fails to employ blacks and youth? That's ridiculous.

"Many workers who have jobs have to work 2 or 3 of them just to scrape by."

"Corporate corruption" makes people work longer hours? Silliness.

"Higher education is almost impossible to obtain without going deeply in debt."

"Corporate corruption" drives up costs for higher education?

Where does the bullshit idea that all of these things are tied to "corporate corruption" come from? Even the press release doesn't assert that.

Ed O.

 

[huevonkiller]

I'd suggest that there is no centralized movement. Marxists and anarchists and unions are using it as a vessel to rail against the status quo.



Your argument would be a weak one, then. To pin those things on "corporate corruption" is to create a bogeyman of epic proportions. And, in my opinion, it makes you look a little insane.

"We are in an unemployment crisis. Almost 14 million people are unemployed. Nearly 20% of African American men are unemployed. Over 25% of our nation’s youth are unemployed."

"Corporate corruption" fails to employ blacks and youth? That's ridiculous.

"Many workers who have jobs have to work 2 or 3 of them just to scrape by."

"Corporate corruption" makes people work longer hours? Silliness.

"Higher education is almost impossible to obtain without going deeply in debt."

"Corporate corruption" drives up costs for higher education?

Where does the bullshit idea that all of these things are tied to "corporate corruption" come from? Even the press release doesn't assert that.

Ed O.

Yeah it is a little sad bluefrog thinks this is some amazing phenomena. He sounds so satisfied with himself, like this is some new day for America.

But in Spain the same thing has been happening since May 15, Socialist youngsters have been protesting against the Socialist President and his failed policies. Bluefrog I know more about Socialist movements than you do. I honestly could not care less about your tuition problems either. It is time to recognize how broken the school grant/loan system is. Not continue your entitlement mentality.

These kids are a joke and are greedy morons. Stealing/Taxing millionaires 100% of their profits will not make us solvent either.

 

[bluefrog]

I'd suggest that there is no centralized movement. Marxists and anarchists and unions are using it as a vessel to rail against the status quo..

true, unfortunately. The Tea Partiers had Fox and right wing radio. For better or worse the OWS just has the internet. I hope it gets better organized

Your argument would be a weak one, then. To pin those things on "corporate corruption" is to create a bogeyman of epic proportions. And, in my opinion, it makes you look a little insane.

"We are in an unemployment crisis. Almost 14 million people are unemployed. Nearly 20% of African American men are unemployed. Over 25% of our nation’s youth are unemployed."

"Corporate corruption" fails to employ blacks and youth? That's ridiculous.

"Many workers who have jobs have to work 2 or 3 of them just to scrape by."

"Corporate corruption" makes people work longer hours? Silliness.

"Higher education is almost impossible to obtain without going deeply in debt."

"Corporate corruption" drives up costs for higher education?

Where does the bullshit idea that all of these things are tied to "corporate corruption" come from? Even the press release doesn't assert that.

Ed O.

Some of it's corporate corruption, some of it's inequality. What's the driver behind inequality? Laziness? Liberals? I think that's the driver of all of this. Why has the richest 1%'s piece of the pie grown dramatically while the rest's has stagnated?

 

[huevonkiller]

Go to McDonalds and get a job.

 

[bluefrog]

Go to McDonalds and get a job.

I have 3 jobs (and a family and I go to school full time). What do you do? How did you pay your way through college?

As long as we're judging each other go ahead and post a list of why you're better than me.

 

[huevonkiller]

I have 3 jobs (and a family and I go to school full time). What do you do? How did you pay your way through college?

As long as we're judging each other go ahead and post a list of why you're better than me.

That post was meant for everyone here, not you.

My complete response is too raunchy to say.... I'll give you the PG version. Some of us are indeed better, specifically the people that work hard and don't ask for more handouts.

 

[bluefrog]

That post was meant for everyone here, not just you.

My complete response is too raunchy to post here.... I'll give you the PG version. Some of us are indeed better, specifically the people that work hard and don't ask for more handouts.

I thought it was directed at me since it was under my post.

Do you consider student loans a handout?

 

[Denny Crane]

That's half of the definition.

Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount.



No, I'm talking about income not keeping pace with inflation, and the systematic financial enslavement of the former middle class. Maybe you should start another thread for what you want to talk about.

There's a clear relationship. As government has grown, it has been taking an increasing share of the economy, leaving worth-less dollars for individuals to buy things. They can print money, but they can't make more land in desirable places to live where the land is owned and built on.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think the problem is that the original concept of the OW movement was clear, but has since been muddled by the huge overflow of angry young people who have hopped on the bandwagon and added just about anything and everything that pisses them off right now. The movement wasn't about the environment or student loans. Of course if you walk up to a bunch of 20 somethings and ask them why they're mad, they're going to throw out everything under the sun. "I'm mad about the environment, I'm mad about my student loans, I'm mad about the rising cost of video games, I'm mad about my weight gain from eating too much pizza, I'm mad about the cost of beer, I'm mad about that bitch that wouldn't give me her phone number at the club last night because she said I needed to take a shower.... etc"

 

[Denny Crane]

I have 3 jobs (and a family and I go to school full time). What do you do? How did you pay your way through college?

As long as we're judging each other go ahead and post a list of why you're better than me.

I worked three jobs to pay my way through school. Minimum wage was $2.50 back then, too.

I'd have never taken a loan for school. I paid in state tuition at a state school. Even today in California, state school tuition isn't so high that you can't pay for it at minimum wage.

My 3 jobs were at a title company, the ice arena, and the USGS. I was able to do homework and study at the ice rink between classes.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

What do you do? How did you pay your way through college?

i have a feeling this isnt going to get answered

 

[huevonkiller]

I worked three jobs to pay my way through school. Minimum wage was $2.50 back then, too.

I'd have never taken a loan for school. I paid in state tuition at a state school. Even today in California, state school tuition isn't so high that you can't pay for it at minimum wage.

My 3 jobs were at a title company, the ice arena, and the USGS. I was able to do homework and study at the ice rink between classes.

Yeah that was pretty much what I was going to say.

State tuition looks pretty fair, it costs like $5000-$7000 a year over here.