Occupy Wall Street Movement [Archive]

lucy

10-11-2011, 05:55 AM

True, jet skis are a dumb investment. :)
However, I was talking about Switzerland, where things aren't (yet) so fucked up as in other places. Or Germany. I mean, when a perfectly rooted bus driver leaves Munich to come working in Switzerland because she barely gets along with the salary she's being paid in Munich, there's something wrong, isn't there?
It's not friggin' Zimbabwe or Mali or Bangladesh, it's Germany. The south, even. Bavaria, probably one of the richest regions in the world.

I just don't understand the mentality of those who want the rich to give them money. I'm not saying that there aren't crooked people out there, but there are a lot of people who have earned what they have through hard work.

Wrong again. Most likely they didn't have to bend one finger to get that filthy rich. Most likely, they inherited it. And if not, they most likely had a lot to begin with. In today's economy, hard work very seldom gets you rich. There might be a very few exceptions, but they indeed are a very small number. Insignificantly small, even.
Oh, and did you know that when it comes to make a career by hard work or to make that oh-so-hailed 'American Dream' come true, America is a very bad place to do it in, at least among the OECD-countries? Wonder why that would be the case ... maybe it's got to do with the US having the least equality of opportunities.

And if that's all not yet enough: Taking from the middle class and giving the rich (which is actually what happens now in a lot of countries) is very, very, very dumb and short sighted. Because in the end it's the middle class which keeps a country prospering and running. The very rich can go everywhere they want. Especially since their dough is already there anyway....

Thorne

10-11-2011, 08:20 AM

when a perfectly rooted bus driver leaves Munich to come working in Switzerland because she barely gets along with the salary she's being paid in Munich, there's something wrong, isn't there?
Perhaps there is, but the question is, What is wrong? Perhaps the cost of living is higher in Germany? Are there benefits to living in Germany that she might have to forego in Switzerland? Do they really pay that much more for bus drivers in Switzerland?

Most likely they didn't have to bend one finger to get that filthy rich. Most likely, they inherited it.
All right, so some people inherited their money. But somewhere along the line, someone had to earn it, right? (I'm not talking about royalty, here, those who inherit there position and wealth for no other reason than the family name and history.) I mean, while I'm not rich by any means, I do hope that when I die I'll have enough to pass on to my kids, to give them a boost in life. What's wrong with that?

In today's economy, hard work very seldom gets you rich.
Depends on the work, doesn't it? Yeah, digging ditches isn't likely to make you a fortune, but working hard to get a good education will do more for you than spending several weeks protesting someone else who got an education. Every job I ever had, I started low and worked my way up. If I'd continued my college studies and gotten my bachelor's degree, chances are I would have gotten even higher. But that's my own fault, isn't it?

There might be a very few exceptions, but they indeed are a very small number. Insignificantly small, even.
I wouldn't call people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs insignificant. They built their empires up from nothing, and have earned every cent they've gotten. Or people like Julia Roberts, who worked her way through bit parts and has become one of the premier actresses of our time. Even sports figures, most of whom I dislike, have had to work to get where they are. We can't blame them if people are willing to pay them ridiculous salaries to play games. No, I think the number of people who inherit their wealth and manage to keep it, or even increase it, are more rare than those who work to get it in the first place.

Oh, and did you know that when it comes to make a career by hard work or to make that oh-so-hailed 'American Dream' come true, America is a very bad place to do it in
I'll grant you that it's not easy, and yes, the economy now makes it even harder. My own kids are struggling, and I sometimes wonder how they'll ever manage to make it. But most of that is their own fault. They had the opportunity to go to school and they turned it down. Which rich person should I blame for that?

Taking from the middle class and giving the rich (which is actually what happens now in a lot of countries) is very, very, very dumb and short sighted. Because in the end it's the middle class which keeps a country prospering and running.
I agree with you here, certainly. But taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor isn't the answer, either. Given the choice of working just enough to get by or working very hard to make something of myself only to have some bureaucrat come along and take it all away to give to someone else, which do you think would benefit me more? Why should I start a business and create jobs if I'm going to be punished for being successful? Why should I bother to develop an innovative technology, providing jobs for many of my neighbors, if it's only going to keep me in the poor house? If you're going to provide for everyone's needs, regardless of their worth, what's the incentive for actually doing anything worthwhile? As soon as you get a little ahead the government's going to come and take it away to give to someone more needy than you. You'd be better off sitting at home and collecting from the government. Until the whole thing collapses. In about two weeks.

thir

10-11-2011, 02:31 PM

Anyonme with any comments on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement which now not only appears to have spread Nation Wide and to a less extent World Wide bu that noe seems to be attracting people beyond just the working class.

I came across about the Occupy Wall Street movement:
http://www.care2.com/causes/the-occupy-wall-street-protester-youll-never-see-on-fox-news-video.html

denuseri

10-11-2011, 03:58 PM

Lets just forgo a lot of the cliques shall we?

First off its true...the rich have only grown richer in the past 30 years, where as the rest of us have actually seen our incomes reduced.

As DailyFinance recently reported, a new study found that the recession's blows have fallen most heavily on lower-wage households. The study's subtitle says it all: "A Truly Great Depression Among the Nation's Low Income Workers Amidst Full Employment Among the Most Affluent."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, a new analysis (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/super-rich-made-344-million-each-in-2007-as-their-tax-rates-plu/19362705/) of Internal Revenue Service data shows that over the last two decades, the wealthiest households in America experienced exploding income even as their tax burdens fell dramatically. And the recession has barely touched these lucky few.The reasons behind this imbalance aren't hard to find. Mainstream economists have long noted that automation and offshoring have resulted in massive job losses for the less educated (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html), while government workers and the highly educated have secured high-paying employment that's largely protected from the effects of globalization.

Corporate Strategies Reduce Costs

Apple (AAPL (http://www.dailyfinance.com/quotes/apple-inc/aapl/nas)) offers a classic example of the globalization phenomenon known as "wage arbitrage." Back in 1985, the company assembled its Macintosh computers in the northern reaches of Silicon Valley. Indeed, a photo of the assembled factory workers was included in the computer's box along with the manuals.

Now Apple's iPods and iPhones are manufactured overseas, while the software development, management and design are centered in Cupertino, Calif. The wage differential (arbitrage) between manufacturing wages in the U.S. and China has led the company to offshore low-value manufacturing while retaining high-value software, design and marketing functions in the high-wage U.S.

As many have noted, it's Apple's edge in design and software, not its manufacturing capabilities, that have vaulted the company to its elite status as a global powerhouse. Only a sliver of the revenues generated by iPod and iPhone sales goes to the factories in China. This strategy of offshoring low-skill work and paying a premium for high-skill labor has enabled Apple to both increase revenues and generate high profit margins.

Though many decry the decline of manufacturing in the U.S., it's really low-value manufacturing that has been squeezed out. High-value manufacturing (semiconductors, telecom equipment and energy equipment, for example) is actually on the rise (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703338504575041510998445620.html).

Manufacturing Shifts, Incomes Follow

The consequences of these long-term trends favoring the financially secure, well-educated (and well-connected) top 20% can be seen in the U.S. Census Bureau's table "Average Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families." (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f03.html)

The Census Bureau divides household income into quintiles -- 20% each, from the lowest to the highest, with an added column that breaks out the top 5% of households. To assess how well each household quintile has done financially since 1975, I took the raw data for 1975 and 2001 (the last year available in this series) and calculated how much each quintile gained in income, both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of their 1975 income.

The results are striking. The vast majority of income increases has accrued to the top 20% and especially the top 5%. Here are some of the numbers, adjusted into 2001 dollars. (Note that this is an "apples to apples" analysis that is adjusted for inflation.)

Bottom 20%
• 1975 household income: $12,664
• 2001 household income: $14,021
• increase: $1,357
• percentage increase from 1975: 10.7%

Middle 20% (a.k.a. "the middle class")
• 1975 household income: $39,807
• 2001 household income: $51,538
• increase: $11,731
• percentage increase from 1975: 29.4%

Top 20%
• 1975 household income: $91,848
• 2001 household income: $159,644
• increase: $67,796
• percentage increase from 1975: 73.8%

Top 5% (a.k.a. "the wealthy")
• 1975: $134,735
• 2001: $280,312
• increase: $145,577
• percentage increase from 1975: 108%

The consequences of such massive income shifts are readily apparent. A 2009 survey found that 30% of American households earning $100,000 or more a year are living paycheck to paycheck, (http://www.cnbc.com/id/32862851/) compared to about 60% of all U.S. households who are living without much of a financial cushion.

Perhaps it's a coincidence, but the fact that 60% of households are living paycheck to paycheck and the fact that the lower 3/5ths (60%) of U.S. households have not gained much ground in the past 35 years is noteworthy.

Not All Assets Are Equal

One factor in this financial decline that's rarely noted is that housing has risen greatly in cost, even when adjusted for inflation. The average home price in 1975 was $158,000 when calculated in 2008 dollars. The average (mean) house price in December 2008 was $301,200 (http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf) -- almost twice the 1975 cost (90.7% higher).

Only the top 5% of households actually gained enough income to match the rise in housing costs. Even the "upper middle class" in the top 20% of households gained only 74% -- substantially less than the 90% rise in housing. The lower 60% of households' ability to afford a house was essentially destroyed by this asymmetric rise in the cost of housing.

Other data support the conclusion that the financial gains in the U.S. economy have largely accrued to the top 20% of households. Sociologist G. William Dumhoff has drawn an important distinction between the net worth held by households in "marketable assets," such as homes and vehicles, and "financial wealth." The key difference is that homes and other tangible assets are, in Dumhoff's words, "not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale."

Financial wealth such as stocks, bonds and other securities are liquid, and therefore easily converted to cash. These assets are what Dumhoff describes as "non-home wealth" in "Wealth, Income, and Power in America" (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) on his website. As of 2007, the bottom 80% of American households held a mere 7% of these financial assets, while the top 1% held 42.7% and the top 20% held fully 93%.

If we look at these data together, it's clear that the majority of American households have little "non-home wealth" financial cushion, and thus it's no wonder that these same households are often living paycheck to paycheck. While many may be tempted to launch a partisan tirade to "explain" these statistics, trends that stretch back decades are structural in nature. Any comprehensive account must incorporate the complex economic history of the past 35 years.

Secondly...the rich do indeed still inherit a great deal of their money, despite only 9% reporting that their wealth alone comes from direct inheritance, most of the rest is already tied up in a trust or planed income vouchers or been signed over years earlier or rolled into stocks and counted differently to avoid taxation. Ultra rich people who actually worked a day in their lives like Bill Gates are most certifiably the exception to the rule when it comes to the wealthy of the world.

StrictMasterD

10-11-2011, 04:04 PM

Did you know last year Wareen Buffet only paid around $20,000 in Income Taxes Thiis is NOT an exct ammount, but it is close), he demanded the IRS make him pay more, they repied "Thanks but no thanks"
His Secretary paid more then he did

thir

10-13-2011, 06:15 AM

Maybe if they were actually WORKING, instead of sitting on their asses protesting, they wouldn't be GETTING poorer!

I do not understand this complete faith that there are always jobs for anyone who wants to work - in the theeth of all evidence to the contrary.

thir

10-13-2011, 06:18 AM

Secondly...the rich do indeed still inherit a great deal of their money, despite only 9% reporting that their wealth alone comes from direct inheritance, most of the rest is already tied up in a trust or planed income vouchers or been signed over years earlier or rolled into stocks and counted differently to avoid taxation. Ultra rich people who actually worked a day in their lives like Bill Gates are most certifiably the exception to the rule when it comes to the wealthy of the world.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for taking the trouble to post this and all the rest, Denuseri. HUGS.

Thorne

10-13-2011, 08:42 AM

I do not understand this complete faith that there are always jobs for anyone who wants to work - in the theeth of all evidence to the contrary.
Preaching to the choir, thir. I've been out of work for two years now, though for the past year I haven't been actively looking, for health reasons. But I'm almost at retirement age anyway, and because my wife and I have saved all our lives we're not suffering.

But I'm not sitting out there complaining that people who ARE working are making too much money, either.

Ownedfyre (mm1)

10-13-2011, 08:44 AM

I work Full time. I am a single mother. I do not qualify for assistance because I work. In order to ask for assistance, I have to be unemployed or have about 4 more kids. I make crap money. but I work from home, so I can spend more time with my daughter, I don't pay child care, and I save on gas. If I were to go get a better paying job, I would lose most of it in taxes, fuel and childcare. I am not lazy, I am not uneducated and I totally and completely agree with the Occupy Wall Street Movement. I am attending a meeting today, as a matter of fact. :)

You cannot group everyone together in any situation. To say that everyone who smokes weed is a lazy, non-contributing member of society would be incorrect. To say that all Republicans are racist, religious fanatical, rich homophobes would be incorrect. To say that all Democrats are Socialist Liberals is incorrect.

My point is, yes, there are people in the Occupy Movement who are most likely lazy, self absorbed, uneducated and unemployed losers who want a free pass. BUT, there are also a lot of educated, hard-working, selfless individuals, who are trying very hard to get their lives on track and cannot, because every time they start to get back on their feet, the banks institute another fee, taxes get higher and they end up paying out more than they bring home.

Ownedfyre (mm1)

10-13-2011, 08:50 AM

Link to the article that denu posted in case anyone is interested. :)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/21/are-the-rich-getting-richer-the-data-says-yes/

thir

10-13-2011, 12:53 PM

Preaching to the choir, thir. I've been out of work for two years now, though for the past year I haven't been actively looking, for health reasons. But I'm almost at retirement age anyway, and because my wife and I have saved all our lives we're not suffering.

Than I am not sure I understand your position, which sounded to me like if you just up and work everything will be fine.

But I'm not sitting out there complaining that people who ARE working are making too much money, either.

But not complaining that there isn't work either? We are depending on work - we can't all just go out and shoot a dear. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Thorne

10-13-2011, 07:17 PM

Than I am not sure I understand your position, which sounded to me like if you just up and work everything will be fine.
Sometimes the best way to get a job is to have a job. Even if you have to temporarily take something at minimum wage. (I know, it's not always that simple.) My point is, actively looking for work is a far better option than complaining that you're being cheated by big business just because they make more money than you think is right. The way to correct the system is to get INTO the system, then make changes. The problem is, once people DO get in, and start making big money, they no longer see the need for change. We are, at our most basic, a greedy species.

denuseri

10-13-2011, 07:46 PM

History has also proven that the system doesn't just change itself magically...not when the people who hold undue influence over it only change it to feed their own greed.

Case in point... (which btw corporations didn't even exist in any sense of today's understanding during the framing of the Constitution) have slowly over the decades increased their rights here and there and reduced their liability to be sued for damages or prosecuted when they get caught doing something wrong: now in a recent supreme court decision have gained the right to pay as much money in secret to support whichever candidate for any office anywhere they wish.

...funny how "we" the people cant do that huh?

You know how many such inequalities like this were corrected in the past?

I will give you a clue...it wasn't via change from within.

thir

10-14-2011, 02:12 PM

Sometimes the best way to get a job is to have a job. Even if you have to temporarily take something at minimum wage. (I know, it's not always that simple.) My point is, actively looking for work is a far better option than complaining that you're being cheated by big business just because they make more money than you think is right. The way to correct the system is to get INTO the system, then make changes. The problem is, once people DO get in, and start making big money, they no longer see the need for change. We are, at our most basic, a greedy species.

From what I know of what is happening around me, people who complain right now are complaining because they cannot get a job. I know in DK we have 3-100 applicants to each job, depending of what kind of job. When I was working we had another top in unemployment, and in my field we had more applicants for each job than we could possibly even answer. I do not see where you can conclude that people who complain do so out of lazyness. Where do you have your facts from?

A while back we had a demonstration in London with a million people, all from differen areas of society, and all ages. Are they all lazy?

A Danish politician - very new and inexperienced - happened to say in a debate that high unemployment was good, because you could keep salaires down. The others hushed her at once and started talking about something else.

I can tell you, from experience with people close around me, that the when the burden of hopeless unemployment is merged with the scorn of 'why don't you try harder', people go into depression and a suicide rate about 5 times the rest of the population. Because not only are you not wanted and cannot take care of yourself, but your human dignity is taken away.

js207

10-14-2011, 03:06 PM

in a recent supreme court decision have gained the right to pay as much money in secret to support whichever candidate for any office anywhere they wish.

...funny how "we" the people cant do that huh?

It sounds like you have misunderstood the Citizens United ruling - which does indeed allow groups of people (incorporated or not) to spend their money to endorse or criticise candidates, in the same way that the individuals concerned can. It does not allow that to be done "in secret" - the statutory requirement to identify those paying for such broadcasts remains - nor does it allow them to do anything individuals cannot. In particular, corporations still can't give money to candidates, unlike individual people: all they can do is express their opinions publicly.

The alternative, that releasing or promoting a film critical of a candidate would be illegal because that candidate is running for office, seems absurd for any developed country, let alone one professing to support freedom of speech. Libel laws permitting, I'm free to post rants on my blog about what an evil baby-eating monster Bill Gates is for pushing Windows on us all; I could club together with a thousand other Linux or Mac users to run that rant on the pages of the NY Times or as a Superbowl ad ... but suddenly, if Gates decides to run for Senator or President, that would be illegal - you really think that's right?

Thorne

10-15-2011, 05:32 AM

A while back we had a demonstration in London with a million people, all from differen areas of society, and all ages. Are they all lazy?
That's not what I'm saying at all! I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system. Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.

Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more? That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'? Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.

denuseri

10-15-2011, 09:20 AM

]It sounds like you have misunderstood the Citizens United ruling -

No I didn't misunderstand it at all...one turn of events just followed the other I simply omitted the other factors that came with and after it placing the blame for whats happening now on the court in my post...and despite what the court likes to claim it was very well informed when they made their decision that things would not be as perfect as they were claiming them to be transparency wise.

Undisclosed campaign money that began pouring into political groups during last year’s congressional elections will, without reform, only grow and lead to scandal, a group of business leaders and university professors said yesterday.

An estimated $500 million was spent to influence congressional elections in 2010 by non-profit groups, trade associations, labor unions and corporations with no trace of where the money came from or how it was used, according to the report by the Committee for Economic Development (http://topics.bloomberg.com/economic-development/).
“This lack of transparency poses a grave threat to our democracy,” concluded the report, which was signed by 32 business leaders and university professors, including representatives from Citigroup Inc. (C) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=C:US), Avaya Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PRU:US)
The group says the Federal Election Commission (http://topics.bloomberg.com/federal-election-commission/) watered down disclosure rules against the advice of the U.S. Supreme Court (http://topics.bloomberg.com/supreme-court/), opening new routes for secret money to get into elections. It is calling on Congress to pass legislation to require disclosure of all money spent to influence elections and discouraging its members from giving to such groups.
“The system we have now takes good men and women who are elected and corrupts them,” said Edward Kangas, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, at a panel discussion yesterday about the committee’s reform proposal.
Executives from pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Pfizer Inc. (PFE) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PFE:US), and from American Electric Power Co., also spoke at the event in support of more disclosure.
Citizens United (http://topics.bloomberg.com/citizens-united/)
The Supreme Court, in a 2010 case known as Citizens United, allowed corporations and unions for the first time to spend unlimited money on ads advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.
In the decision, the high court expressed confidence that interested voters could easily discern the identities of those paying for campaign ads.
“With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority.
Disclosure Requirements The FEC, however, loosened requirements for disclosure of donors, making groups report the names of contributors only if they are paying for a particular ad, the group said.
“The FEC, the agency responsible for implementing campaign finance law, has eviscerated the disclosure regulations applied to campaign advertising,” the report said. “Instead of promoting transparency, the agency has added a new element of secrecy in campaign finance.”
The risks to companies of publicly supporting a political candidate became clear immediately after Citizens United when Target Corp. (TGT) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=TGT:US) made a $150,000 donation to MN Forward, a business advocacy group which in turn ran ads supporting a gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage. Gay rights groups boycotted the company and Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized.
That incident showed that “there’s a big risk for companies to go out and be so public politically,” said Barbara Bonfiglio, senior corporate counsel at Pfizer. “It’s just not a place that too many companies are going to be comfortable playing in.”
However, they may be comfortable if their donations aren’t made public, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that advocates for limits to money in campaigns.
Electioneering Communications In the 2010 election cycle, 308 non-party groups reported spending money to influence voters, and only 166 of those reported where the money came from. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which reported $31 million in “electioneering communications” spending to the FEC, won’t name any of the companies or individuals who gave it the money.
Independent groups are already raising money for the 2012 elections, with their sights set even higher.
American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies -- created with support from Karl Rove (http://topics.bloomberg.com/karl-rove/) and Ed Gillespie (http://topics.bloomberg.com/ed-gillespie/), former aides to President George W. Bush (http://topics.bloomberg.com/george-w.-bush/) -- set an initial goal to raise $120 million for 2012 and then doubled that target earlier this month.
They gathered $71 million in 2010, according to spokesman Jonathan Collegio. Crossroads GPS keeps its donor list secret.
Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, two groups founded by Bill Burton (http://topics.bloomberg.com/bill-burton/) and Sean Sweeney (http://topics.bloomberg.com/sean-sweeney/), former aides to President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/), are trying to raise $100 million to help keep the president in the White House.

As reported by: Alison Fitzgerald

MasterRok

10-15-2011, 11:37 AM

ok I thought this was an occupy wall street thread, I think the people I've seen and heard from on wall street are dangerous, I'm hearing things like I want my fair share, well what the hell is your fair share? give me a number and we'll discuss it but the fair share I keep hearing is 100% I want my college paid for free, I want my student loans to be forgiven, and make the banks forgive everyone's debt. If that happens this great free country we live in falls on it's ass and mark my words, you will lose the freedom to speak, the country is headed towards a bad place and it been created by parents and college prof's (and yes I'm a parent and have said this myself) I want my kids to have it better than I did, not to have to work so hard and be able to get ahead.....we've made a bunch of whining pussy's who think because some lives in a nice house and gets paid more money, the whiner deserves the rich to support him too and if you disagree with them your cussed at and told how stupid you are.

just a note for some to think about: About 46 percent of American households will pay no federal individual income tax in 2011, roughly half of them because of structural features of the income tax that provide basic exemptions for subsistence level income and for dependents. The other half are nontaxable because tax expenditures— special provisions in the tax code that benefit selected taxpayers or activities—wipe out tax liabilities and, in the case of refundable credits, yield net payments from the government. Provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children particularly affect households with income under $50,000 but other factors make higher-income households nontaxable.

Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund. The significant fraction of tax units that do not pay income tax has become a topic of public debate. Some commentators have suggested that the large share paying no income tax is mostly the result of tax expenditures (sometimes referred to as "loopholes" or "tax earmarks"). If that were so, nearly all tax units would pay income tax under a reformed income tax with no tax expenditures. In fact, however, even with all tax expenditures repealed, standard income tax provisions that exempt a basic amount of income would still leave many units nontaxable.

this comes from http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001547

thir

10-16-2011, 10:23 AM

That's not what I'm saying at all!

Got you wrong again, then. Sorry.

I simply said that they would be better served by working within the system.

Thorne - the jobs aren't there!

Yes, some are lazy. Like any group of people. Some are working, but barely getting by. Some have good jobs. The problem is that they seem to want successful businesses to give money back to their customers. They castigate those who make a profit. They don't seem to understand that, if you remove the lure of profit from industry, you won't have industry. There will be no incentive for businesses to keep on doing business.

People just want a job, so they can live. They can't go out and shoot a deer.
The business of business is to get them as cheaply as possible, and make as much profit as possible.
Thus the clash of interests.

Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.

The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.

If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.

Do these people honestly believe we would be better off if everyone in the world got just what they needed to live (housing, food, medicines) and nothing more?

It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!

That anyone who makes more money than they need for these things should have that money taken from them to pay for those 'less fortunate'?

There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!

Where is the reason to even work, then? Why bother to strive for improvement? It all makes no sense to me.

Human beings will always want to work, one way or the other. We are not designed to sit on our buts all day long, staring vaguely ahead...? Moving about and doing stuff is built into us.

Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but [I]doing stuff.

thir

10-16-2011, 10:33 AM

Thorne

10-16-2011, 12:06 PM

Thorne - the jobs aren't there!
There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.

Problem now is not just the crisis, but the fact that many busnesses automate their production, so less jobs.
But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?

The businesses get help when they don't do well. Why?? Acccording to other parts of the system you mention, this should not happen, businesses should weed themselves out. First check.
I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.

If businesses could not score a profit, do you think the world would stand still? No progress? No one wanting to do anything[I]? A statement heard often, but never proven! Personally I don't think human beings are lotus eaters by nature.
No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.

It would never just be 'nothing more'. People are so much more than that!
I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.

There goes the American dream again: there are always jobs, always education, if you want it. In the teeth of all evidence!
But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it. And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.

Maybe not in the Lutheranian way (again taken from Christianity, even atheists carry the Christian values in them: In the sweat of your face you shall earn your bread) - not work for work's sake, but [I]doing stuff.
Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.

StrictMasterD

10-16-2011, 02:19 PM

Parto fhte Point is that the United States Governement AT TAX PAYERS EXSPENSE bailout out the banks, who are not making oney hand overfitst, their CEO's are making Multi mIllion dolars a year, are nickle and diming Americans to death with this feee, that fee, etc, if it wasn't for us TaxPayers these people in Banking would be part of the 9.1% umemplyment percentage,
It is a simple issue of US bailingthem out then they turn thewir back on who keept them afloated with FEDREAL LOANS using our TAX Dollars

thir

10-20-2011, 04:31 AM

There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up.

Well, all I can tell you is that in other countries this is NOT the case. That is what unemployment means, that is what they count in %. As I said, I have personally experienced that enormous amount of applications to every job, which incidently, while interesting, wasn't paid all that much. And I have a first call view of life as unemployed, even in relatively humane countries as UK and DK, which is a night-mare than most people try desperately to scramble out of.

But, and this is said without rancour though with some confusion in your case, I understand that myth is stronger than mere facts.

But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs. Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them? Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?

The point about automation was only to list one of the reasons for unemployment.I guess it wasn't clear, but it was meant as an objective observation, not a hint that firms have to employ people. Although they may run out of customes somewhere along the line if they don't. It all has to hang together somewhere.

I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.

Apparently, some disagree. They are too big to fail. Big car industries and banks do get help - billions of $ of help. I fail to see how this mixture of public funds and private firms is supposed to work. Either let them fall, or nationalize them.

No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.

What? But if people are self-employed, they do not need any other job - believe me! Sound like a very good solution to me, privately as well as nationally.

I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have.

I got a bit lost here again. What is wrong with being satisfied with what you have?

But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.

I understand this is hard to take in, but NO, there aren't always jobs. Not even crap jobs! In DK and UK people are lining up for shitty jobs! The system says you have to take any job offered, but they do not have any to offer. The system has been privatized to firms who get paid for every person they find a job for, and they cannot find any. (That is in DK.)

I think it is time for the politicians to face the facts: that there has to be a congruence between number of workable people, and jobs. Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.

It is time for new thinking.

And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money.

I do not even know where to begin with education... just two facts, one is that some are poor enough that children are needed to help make money. The other is that statistics show that poor people get little education, while children of rich people get lots of education. Do you really seriously believe that they are all - well, you did not like the expression lazy, so what do I call it? Stupid? Uninterested in their future? BTW, I saw a program which showed that many children in ghettoes are in fact uninterested in their future, beacsause they do not expect to reach 20 yrs of age.

Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.

There is a difference between 'labour' and entertainment - for many people, anyway. Work can mean doing really useful things, as opposed to making gadgets nobody really needs, or pushing paper around.

Inventors of all kinds, researchers of all kinds, helpers of various kinds (animals, old people, sick people etc.) making your own radio station, writing books, clearing up beaches and streets, (yes, people do this voluntarily!) planting more trees (yes, they do it without being paid) gardening your own vedgetables, looking after your children and old people, making your own clothes (some are really deft at this) art, making bdsm gadgets ;-) and so on and so forth.

Are we here to work, and buy? Or to live, in our own right?
working with racist problems, haressment against disabled people,

js207

10-20-2011, 05:15 AM

I find the "too big to fail" spectacle alarming myself - surely when a company has become so big that its problems threaten us all, it is so big that the company itself is a problem for us all - perhaps it cannot be allowed to fail, but nor can it safely be allowed to continue as it is: each and every bailout should have come as one part of a breakup like AT&T, to restructure the problem company into pieces which can survive and operate in future without threatening us in that way.

Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.

No, automation removes existing jobs from the market over time - and at a faster rate when there is lower unemployment, because of supply and demand. How many people work maintaining horse-drawn carriages now, or stoking coal-fired steam engines? Virtually none, of course, compared to 1911 - but equally, back then there were almost no diesel or jet engines being maintained, no oil rigs being crewed... Old jobs become obsolete, new ones take their place. Meanwhile, unemployment holds down wages - which makes additional automation less economically attractive. Right now, I can buy a little device which will mow my lawn for me unattended for something like $1000 - or I can pay someone $30 to do it manually each time. With unemployment the way it is, the guy who mows it hasn't put prices up for a while (though since he has only shown up twice since May, unemployment may be his fate anyway) - so automation hasn't cost him that (part of a) job. A few years down the line, unemployment will have dropped, he'll be wanting $50 and that machine will cost $500, so it will be time to replace him.

The total number of jobs has actually increased greatly. One part of the problem is a growing population: the US needs to create something like 100,000 new jobs every month just to employ the new people who join the workforce - and over the last century, it has indeed managed exactly that: there may be millions unemployed right now, but there are several times as many employed people as there were a few decades ago as well. Many millions of new jobs have been created - but so have millions of new people wanting to fill them. Sadly, there are already people (in the UK at least) who do indeed go through life without finding or even seeking employment

One thing really disgusted me recently, in a little news feature (here in the UK) about the economy. To illustrate the plight of "poor" people, they featured two women on low incomes, said how much money they were getting, then talked to them about how they were cutting costs and struggling. The disgusting detail was that the one with the job - hence actually paying tax, though only a little of it - had a lower income than the non-working one paying nothing to the government. To camouflage this fact, the presenter quoted the first woman's income annually and the second weekly, no doubt knowing most of the audience wouldn't convert to compare the two directly. I think that's what Thorne is getting at: when she is being handed a better income and lifestyle on a plate without making the slightest bit of effort, why would she even try to imitate the one with the job and work hard to earn it? For all our politicians' fine words, we still have "non working households", where income is something the government gives you for nothing and work is something other people do. The government provides them with housing - rent-free because they're on welfare - waives the tax on that housing for the same reason - then gives them free spending money to live on as well. Economic suicide!

Thorne

10-20-2011, 06:13 AM

But, and this is said without rancour though with some confusion in your case, I understand that myth is stronger than mere facts.
I'm not offended, but I do try not to use myths instead of facts. However, I am limited by my environment, and in all honesty by a certain amount of laziness. I have no idea what conditions are like elsewhere, even elsewhere in the US, except from reading scattered reports on line. I am only familiar with my own area of central South Carolina. I applied for several jobs over the last few years, jobs which required technical skills and a good education. At my age, even possessing those skills, the likelihood of getting such jobs is slim. And yes, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of applicants. But at the same time, you can walk into almost any McDonalds or Burger King or the like and be almost guaranteed a minimum wage job if you want it. Most don't even want to consider working in such places, though. In my case, while I was collecting unemployment, I would have had to get a job making more than double the minimum wage just to offset the amount of unemployment I was getting. There was no incentive for me to take such a job.

In my little corner of the world, though, there always seem to be SOME jobs advertised. My DIL works for a Jobs Company, similar to Monster, and they always have new clients coming in looking for qualified help. But the key word is "qualified". Our failed educational system doesn't exactly make people qualified.

What? But if people are self-employed, they do not need any other job - believe me! Sound like a very good solution to me, privately as well as nationally.
Yeah, but how many Mom & Pop groceries can one neighborhood support? How many lawn care "specialists"? There still has to be a customer base, even if you're self-employed.

What is wrong with being satisfied with what you have?
Nothing wrong with it. The only question is how you got there.

Automation alone makes the number of jobs go down ever so steadily - and number of people rises. We may end up with a society where jobs are just not an option through a person's entire life.
Automation makes for NEW kinds of jobs, jobs which require some skill and education. And perhaps the solution is to convince people that they should NOT have children. Like by NOT having the government reward them for adding more kids to the welfare rolls.

It is time for new thinking.
I haven't seen a whole lot of OLD thinking, sadly. ANY thinking, rather than just reacting, would be an improvement.

Are we here to work, and buy? Or to live, in our own right?
We aren't here to DO anything. That implies some kind of externally imposed purpose. We are HERE. That's all. What we MAKE of that is up to us. Very few of us are capable of surviving in the wilderness. And the wilderness is incapable of supporting too many anyway. So we must work to live, if at all possible. One benefit of being human is that we do, for the most part, try to take care of those who are not able to work, for various reasons. Where we need to draw the line is in supporting, indefinitely, those who don't WANT to work.

leo9

10-20-2011, 06:41 AM

There are jobs. Just not the high-paying jobs that they want. Nobody wants to start at the bottom and work their way up. Thorne, you got to stop taking those curmudgeon pills. Being a grumpy old man may seem like fun, but if you carry on like this you'll get religion, and then you'll be sorry.

The bottom level jobs - shelf stacking, burger flipping etc - are already full of college graduates and people who used to have executive jobs till their firm got outsourced or downsized. They're not working their way up, they're treading water desperately. When the simplest job is offered there's a line for it. I don't know enough about the US to say, but in this country the growing problem is not the newly unemployed, it's the people who've never had a job in their lives and know there is no realistic prospect of their ever getting one, because no matter what qualifications they work for, there will be people with the same pieces of paper plus work experience in the line ahead of them.

Even our conservatives have stopped repeating the old line about how there are jobs if people look for them, because they have been hit over the head often enough with government figures showing that there aren't.

But that's the point of running a business. Maximize profits and minimize costs.
And that's why business can't be the only thing that matters. Because there are lots of important things that can't be done efficiently on a profit-making basis. For example, it's why no civilised country relies on profit making systems to provide basic healthcare: that has to be done by a system where the point is keeping people healthy, and the profit and loss account is just part of the administrative background, not the basis of policy making.

If that's too contentious, how about considering why the Department of Defence isn't run as a profit making business? After all, that's supposed to be the way to make any operation efficient, right?

Are we supposed to mandate how many employees a business must hire? Even if they don't need them?It's been done, but the record shows it's not an efficient solution. Subsidising employment (either directly, or indirectly by pumping government money into a business so it won't lay off staff) also has a poor record, usually because the bosses pocket the money and then fold the business. But in this country we have what's called tax credits for people in work but not earning enough to live off, and it's been pointed out that this amounts to subsidising employment: if it wasn't there, businesses at the bottom end would have to pay more. (Not - before you say it - because people won't take low paid jobs, but because there comes a point of low pay when you're financially worse off working.)
Again, what's the point in starting a business, then?There are always costs and problems with being in business, and one of the tasks of government is to make business carry all the load it can but not more than it can. A mandated payroll, if there was one, would be effectively another tax, and would have to be figured in along with the rest of the tax load.

I agree completely. The businesses SHOULD be weeded out if they cannot compete. NO business is too big to fail.The Great Depression happened because the banks were left to fail. Would you let the only hospital in town close because it couldn't pay its bills? When the private company running our railways was failing, they didn't pour money into it with no oversight, they nationalised it.

The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.

No, not at all. But you would have a lot of small businesses, individuals or families running their own businesses, which wouldn't help the job situation either.You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.

UK governments, right and left, make a priority of supporting small businesses with tax breaks and legal help. Not just because every big business was a small business once, but because small businesses soak up unemployment faster than big ones. They keep their staff longer when times get hard, because they work as a team, and they hire sooner when the economy picks up, because they're more flexible.

I think there are a LOT of people who would be satisfied with nothing more, at least on the books. Sure, they'll work off the records to get some luxuries, but if they didn't have to work for the basics, too many would be satisfied with what they have. I take it you're not a Star Trek fan ;)
You don't believe people will ever work for nothing? Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay, and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do. And yet according to conventional economic rules, it shouldn't happen.

And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them. By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.

But there ARE always jobs. They may not be GOOD jobs. May not be high paying jobs, but there is work out there. You just have to be willing to do it.I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?
And we have federally mandated education through high school in the US. There are teachers out there who want to teach. There are students who want to learn. Perhaps the biggest challenge this country faces, though, is fixing the education system. Which takes money. TAX money. There, every liberal in the country will agree with you. My oldest son is working as a teacher in New Jersey, because any school that can afford it hires from outside the US. Because in order to make "No Child Left Behind" work without actually spending any money, US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."

Doing "stuff" doesn't necessarily imply doing constructive labor. In this day and age people are quite happy riding around on their four-wheelers, or their jet-skis, or going to parties. They just don't want to actually have to earn the money it takes to do those things.See, this is the kind of thing that makes debate so dificult. thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.

There's a textbook to write on this, but I'm on my lunch hour and already half an hour over, and my boss knows about it because I'm self employed. More later.

lucy

10-20-2011, 07:45 AM

Thorne

10-20-2011, 10:30 AM

Thorne, you got to stop taking those curmudgeon pills. Being a grumpy old man may seem like fun, but if you carry on like this you'll get religion, and then you'll be sorry.
I never used to take the pills, but my granddaughters corrupted me, and if I forget to take them now I'm sometimes accused of being almost tolerable! [shudder]

The mistake wasn't rescuing the banks, it was rescuing them with public money without getting any public control, so they just went right on doing the same things wrong that got us into this mess.
Here in the US most banks are members of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.) which insures the deposits of their clients (up to a certain maximum.) During the Great Depression there was no such safeguard, and depositors lost everything when the banks failed. Now those depositors are protected, at least to a degree. But I agree, letting the banks carry on with business as usual after failing so spectacularly is a fools game.

You mean, if it's not being done by corporations, it doesn't exist economically. If people are working for themselves, not making profits for shareholders, they might as well be unemployed for all the good they're doing.
No, not at all. It's just that, with small businesses, people tend to work longer hours and wear far more hats than if they were working for someone else. You mentioned that you are self-employed. Do you hire an accountant to keep your books? Do you hire someone to sweep your floors? What about a purchasing agent? Chances are, even without knowing just what kind of work you do, there are many things which a manager in a large business would hire someone to do, that you do for yourself, even during lunches and after business hours. That does nothing to help the job market, of course.

I take it you're not a Star Trek fan ;) You don't believe people will ever work for nothing?Actually, I AM a fan, I just don't mistake the Star Trek Universe with current reality. Sure, people work for nothing. Charitable organizations depend upon it. But most of those who do aren't dependent on working for a living. They do it for amusement, to have something to do, maybe to increase their social status, or even maybe because they think it's the right thing to do. Regardless, it's because they have the TIME to do it, and enjoy it to some degree. But those same charitable organizations will tell you that those kinds of people are rare indeed.

Right now, all over the developed world, a large percentage of the population are working full time cooking and cleaning and tending children without a cent of pay
No MONETARY pay, I agree. But they have clothing, a roof over their heads, three meals a day. SOMEONE is paying for that, probably by working. These caregivers are (generally) getting some form of compensation (though probably not nearly enough for what they do!)

and nobody (except for some feminists) thinks that odd because it's what women are supposed to do.
Well, let's not forget that there are some men out there who do such things, too. Traditionally women have taken on that role, but that is changing. Most US households depend upon two incomes anyway, so the kids are being sent to daycare and school.

And looking at it from the other end, the people at the top of the economy have more money than they can find ways to spend even though there are whole industries devoted to wasting their money for them.
And those industries hire workers to help the rich waste their money. Nothing wrong with that!

By textbook economics, they should have stopped working long ago, they have no economic incentive. But some of them work harder than the guy on an hourly rate.
I remember when my grandmother wouldn't call our house because it was a toll call, and she lived through the Great Depression, learning that you pinched every cent until it screamed. Spending ten cents on a phone call was scandalous to her, even though she could afford it. It's the same with those who have worked hard all their lives to get ahead. It becomes a habit, one that can be hard to break. Plus they feel they have to keep making money to support their kids, who are spending it almost as fast as the parents make it.

I grant you that the government and the private agencies whose statistics say otherwise might all be lying. What I want to know is, where do you get the facts that contradict them all? Or is it just a gut feeling?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my data comes from the local newspaper, the local unemployment service and the internet services that help people find jobs. I have no formal training in economics, nor any real interest other than what I need to know to keep my own finances in order. I will grant that there aren't always new jobs posted every day, but there are several posted each week, and this is a relatively small community.

US teacher training was cut down to "this is a blackboard, this is chalk, but you won't every use them because all you have to do is stand in front of a class and try to shout down the riot."
Just my point. Schools have become little more than babysitting services, with each teacher passing on the problem students to the next teacher in line. THIS is what needs fixing, and it will take money, but it will also take dedication and determination. Stop worrying about little Billie's feelings being hurt because he isn't learning as fast as Suzie. Stop slowing the pace of teaching to the lowest common denominator. Stop sending disruptive students home (which is what they want anyway) and start teaching kids that there are consequences for bad behavior, and that they are responsible for their own actions. I know it's a radical concept, but it worked for my kids.

thir talked about giving people the basics of life, you jump to giving them jet-skis and parties.
No, I'm saying that those who can afford jet-skis and parties don't NEED to be given the basics. It's those who are getting free housing, free food and free healthcare from the government, then going out and buying luxuries with the money that they do have that annoy me.

leo9

10-20-2011, 01:26 PM

The disgusting detail was that the one with the job - hence actually paying tax, though only a little of it - had a lower income than the non-working one paying nothing to the government.That totally annoys the hell out of me too. When my brother already had three kids and was doing a doctorate while his wife stayed at home for two years coz of the kids they'd actually been better off if he had stopped working on his doctorate and not done any work at all.
How fucking stupid is that? Work should always pay off, compared to not doing any work.Now see, you're not using "work" the way an economist or politician uses it.

You and I think that "work" is something that takes time and effort and produces a useful result. An economist says it's what you get paid for. If you're studying, no matter how hard you may think you're working, from the point of view of a conservative you're goofing off, beause you're not getting paid. So you ought to starve.

UK governments tie themselves in knots over volunteer workers. On the one hand, our society couldn't run without them, and our conservatives like them because it's a cosy tradition. On the other hand, the tax and welfare offices don't know how to account for them because unpaid work is a contradiction in terms.

Now, several years later and thanks to his doctorate, they both earn roughly 200k a year and pay more in taxes each year than he ever got as subsidies while he was on his doctorate.A piece of logic that's apparent to every government that looks at it logically, but conservatives cannot get their heads around it because they can't get past the horror of someone being paid by the government to read books. The fact that society is far better off in the long run as a result is not as important as the fact that someone is getting SOMETHING FOR NOTHING and this has to be bad.

js207

10-20-2011, 02:53 PM

"If you're studying, no matter how hard you may think you're working, from the point of view of a conservative you're goofing off, beause you're not getting paid. So you ought to starve."

Nonsense - you're making an investment in your own future, and these days almost certainly borrowing to do so. More than that, though, you don't actually receive any government money to live on, just a loan (unless you're actually a researcher doing government-funded research - in which case, of course, you're working for the government, not studying) - all the government provides is a subsidy for the actual tuition and the interest costs on your loan.

"A piece of logic that's apparent to every government that looks at it logically, but conservatives cannot get their heads around it because they can't get past the horror of someone being paid by the government to read books. The fact that society is far better off in the long run as a result is not as important as the fact that someone is getting SOMETHING FOR NOTHING and this has to be bad."

Also nonsense throughout - they aren't getting something for nothing, it's over a decade since that stopped being the case (and remind me, which party was it that made that change? Not a Conservative one!) and, in theory at least, the government is getting a better qualified and skilled workforce thanks to that subsidy. Overall, last time I looked the higher income earned by graduates meant they more than repaid that investment to the government in the extra tax on that higher income - though the value of a degree has been eroded significantly in recent years with market saturation, so that may no longer be the case.

More than that, though, if you go back and read the passage you quoted, Lucy's brother is not being paid by the government - rather, he's actually being penalised for doing that rather than sitting there doing nothing .. far from 'paying him to read books', they essentially offer him extra money not to become better educated. Being on that path myself, I sympathise - and to be honest, a large part of the appeal of a PhD to me is that it makes an effective ticket out of here and away from a regime far too eager to take from those who work and give to those who don't.

thir

10-22-2011, 02:42 AM

That totally annoys the hell out of me too. When my brother already had three kids and was doing a doctorate while his wife stayed at home for two years coz of the kids they'd actually been better off if he had stopped working on his doctorate and not done any work at all.
How fucking stupid is that? Work should always pay off, compared to not doing any work.

Now, several years later and thanks to his doctorate, they both earn roughly 200k a year and pay more in taxes each year than he ever got as subsidies while he was on his doctorate.

I am not sure what is compared here: subsidies (?) versus unemployment pay?

Anyway, in DK some complained that people got too much pay in unemployment money (none of the complainers unemployed, obviously) and so, it was claimed, they would not work, because the low paid jobs they could otherwise get would lower their income if they took them.

This may be right for some, dependign on how much they got in unemployment, so the government promptly deceided to lower the pay to the lowest common denominator, the lowest paid jobs. Thus making sure that noone had enough. Personally, I think it would be more natural to raise minimum vages. A job you can live on is not too much to ask.

It belongs to the story that in DK at least (not entirely sure how it is organised in other countries) your unemployment, as well as wellfare, health services and the like is a part of the deal you have with the national tresure: you pay taxes ( a LOT of taxes) in return for help when you need it. It is a public insurance. What happens with right wing governments is that they take the money, and then do not deliver the product, or they lower the service while rasing the taxes (though not for the wealthy.). This, IMO, is theft and embezzlement.

One problem is, of course, that the money comes from two different systems: unemployment from the public and vages from private firms. The muddle between these systems is unbelieveable.

js207

10-22-2011, 03:15 AM

I am not sure what is compared here: subsidies (?) versus unemployment pay?

Anyway, in DK some complained that people got too much pay in unemployment money (none of the complainers unemployed, obviously) and so, it was claimed, they would not work, because the low paid jobs they could otherwise get would lower their income if they took them.

This may be right for some, dependign on how much they got in unemployment, so the government promptly deceided to lower the pay to the lowest common denominator, the lowest paid jobs. Thus making sure that noone had enough. Personally, I think it would be more natural to raise minimum vages. A job you can live on is not too much to ask.

It belongs to the story that in DK at least (not entirely sure how it is organised in other countries) your unemployment, as well as wellfare, health services and the like is a part of the deal you have with the national tresure: you pay taxes ( a LOT of taxes) in return for help when you need it. It is a public insurance. What happens with right wing governments is that they take the money, and then do not deliver the product, or they lower the service while rasing the taxes (though not for the wealthy.). This, IMO, is theft and embezzlement.

One problem is, of course, that the money comes from two different systems: unemployment from the public and vages from private firms. The muddle between these systems is unbelieveable.

I think Lucy's comparison is between unemployment benefits and the small amount of money you get as a funded PhD student; mine, which led to hers, was between employment and welfare. Our current mixed government has announced a plan to ensure nobody will lose out by taking a job rather than staying on welfare, which should never have been the case anyway: taking a job which pays X should not lose you more than X in benefits. They've also announced a plan to stop the richest parents getting welfare payments for having kids; I found the complaints about that quite depressing - you really think I should pay taxes to be given to someone on two or three times my income as a reward for managing to have unprotected sex?!

The "right/left" divide seems to vary between countries. Here in the UK, it was the left-wing government which kept putting taxes up, particularly on the poorer working people, fuel and energy taxes in particular, as well as introducing a heavy tax on pensions. The new government, a coalition of the other left-wing party and one which used to be right-wing and seems to be all over the place now, put taxes up again, but claims to have a plan to lower them again years from now if and when the enormous budget deficit shrinks to manageable levels again. They've also increased overall spending by 9.3% over last year, amidst hyperventilation and shrieking about imaginary "cuts" even in services which have seen big funding increases. (Disturbingly, they managed to find billions of pounds to give to Ireland, billions more for Greece and hundreds of millions for both India and Pakistan...)

I'd love to see some simplification and a savings system for unemployment: rather than a big chunk of your salary being taken as extra spending money by the government, then getting money from it if you lose your job, have some of that money go into a savings account you can then draw on when unemployed. Politically easier to justify - it's your own money you're getting as unemployment income now - and people should feel safer with an actual personal safety net while they work, instead of taxes and vague promises which might be broken if it suits the politicians. Moreover, depositing extra savings would help boost bank lending (more capital to fund investments) and reduce the problems we've seen recently.

thir

10-23-2011, 08:13 AM

Just thought I'd post this article, with special reference to the last sentences:

Who Are the 99 Percent? Story #13

We are lucky. My husband has a full time salaried position with the county government that pays slightly less than $22K a year, and the SSI three of our four children receive for being autistic means I can stay home and be there for them. I tried working, when there were more jobs, but we had severe discipline and anxiety problems. Our girls seem to fall apart right now when I’m not home. So I stay home.

We own a trailer, and rent a lot in a trailer park. In the past year, people have been moving out because they can’t even afford mortgages on cheap mobile homes. In the summer, if you looked out the window, you would see a procession of guys pushing lawn mowers down the streets. Those were residents who were looking for odd jobs because they had hit rock bottom, and mowing lawns was preferable to outright begging. They never seemed to get work, maybe because nobody could afford to hire a lawn mower.

I was raised upper middle class, sent to private schools, went to a private undergraduate institution (graduated cum laude), did my master’s work at the University of Oxford, and after working in an industry that imploded (mortgages) wound up as… a professional telemarketer. My husband was told, when doing his paralegal studies degree, that the average paralegal starts at $35K to $40K and can make up to twice that amount. Statistics showed this to be true. His college did also have a near-100% placement rate… but when he graduated, few law firms were hiring. He got hired by the county department of probation at a salary usually associated with entry level receptionists. He was one of the lucky ones.

There are homeless children in the school our daughters attend.

And yet we are told, “Hard work pays off. If you are not successful, you have only yourselves to blame.”

And the children who have no home? No food aside from what they get in the school cafeteria? What are they being told?

WE ARE THE 99%. WE ARE NOT FAILURES. WE ARE NOT LAZY. WE ARE NOT STUPID, OR SPENDTHRIFT, OR FREELOADERS IN SEARCH OF HANDOUTS. WE ARE HUMAN.

occupywallst.org

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/who-are-the-99-percent-story-13.html#ixzz1bcNpHW83

js207

10-23-2011, 01:15 PM

The hyperbole doesn't help - on those criteria, they aren't 99% ... more like 9%. Factor in raising three disabled kids on welfare and they're probably more like 0.09%. (Having those four kids without a decent job between them doesn't sound too bright either: OK, the mother did have a job for a while, but it sounds as if the father has never made more than the $22k? In my book, having four kids is indeed "spendthrift", to use the wording they use to deny it! Some people can afford that, this family obviously can't - but chose to do it anyway.)

Right now, we're all being squeezed hard. Our central banks are complacent about runaway inflation (they can afford to be: the Bank of England, at least, has 95% inflation protection build into its staff pension scheme now!) while it effectively hands those of us still managing to hold on to jobs a big pay cut each year. (I'm no longer among them: after reduced working hours for a while now, my job comes to an end next month.)

The trouble is, these people are still protesting in the wrong place. It isn't Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange that set suicidal interest rates then printed hundreds of billions of Mugabe-money: it's the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, and the governments which appoint their management. It isn't any company which threw away hundreds of billions (and now plans to up that into multiple trillions) trying to cover up dishonesty and incompetence in Greece, but "our" governments. Why aren't the protestors outside Parliament, Congress, the White House?

thir

10-24-2011, 04:31 AM

The hyperbole doesn't help - on those criteria, they aren't 99% ... more like 9%.

As I understand it, the 99% are the people without vast fortunes.

Factor in raising three disabled kids on welfare and they're probably more like 0.09%. (Having those four kids without a decent job between them doesn't sound too bright either: OK, the mother did have a job for a while, but it sounds as if the father has never made more than the $22k? In my book, having four kids is indeed "spendthrift", to use the wording they use to deny it! Some people can afford that, this family obviously can't - but chose to do it anyway.)

Now here you have an interesting topic: are children for those with money? What about the low birth rate? Should we have a law or rule against having children if your income is low? Would the Chineese way (if they still do it) of everyone being limited to one be fairer? If you have a handicapped child, should you be allowed another, or is that it? What if you start out ok, but then loose your job or your business crash after good times are turned into bad times? If many cannot afford children, who will look after (pay) for people getting old?

At one time children - or the continuation of the species, or the future, if you like - was anybody's business. Now it sort of blows in the wind.

As for me, I think there should be a law against having more than 2 children, not for economical reasons, but because we are far too many people.

The trouble is, these people are still protesting in the wrong place. It isn't Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange that set suicidal interest rates then printed hundreds of billions of Mugabe-money: it's the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, and the governments which appoint their management. It isn't any company which threw away hundreds of billions (and now plans to up that into multiple trillions) trying to cover up dishonesty and incompetence in Greece, but "our" governments. Why aren't the protestors outside Parliament, Congress, the White House?

I do not think it matters much where they are, exactly. The protest is (if I get this right) against the grotesk gap between rich and poor, and the reasons for it.

ksst

10-24-2011, 05:00 AM

I think having more than 2 kids is excessive also, but people do make mistakes, or birth control fails, or really want larger families, and it's just evil to go around forcing abortions on people who don't want them.
As for the movement, I think we would get more response by blaming the government than Wall Street. Really it's both of them together that made the mess, but government is elected here where Wall Street really doesn't answer to anyone. The government failed by relaxing regulations that allowed the investors/mortgage lenders to behave irresponsibly. The gap between rich and poor has only been encouraged by Republican tax policies lately, so protest congress. I don't completely understand the Occupy Wall Street movement, because everyone I've heard interviewed said they have no concrete goals or demands.

StrictMasterD

10-24-2011, 07:55 AM

According to a story I heard over the weekend within the Week The Movement wil in fact make Publis its Goals and Demands so Everyone in America and around the World wil know Exactly wha tthe "Occupy Wall Strret" Movements wants

ksst

10-24-2011, 04:16 PM

One I heard announced today was a demand to stop making corporations into people, especially the recent supreme court decision letting them dump all kinds of money into campaigns as "free speech".

js207

10-28-2011, 07:22 AM

It has apparently been amusing to watch some of the OWS people's richer supporters dancing around trying to deny that their own fortunes put them firmly in the 1% they are complaining about - there's a rich left-wing journalist in the UK with three houses and a job with a (tax-dodging!) privately-owned newspaper who makes for a particularly absurd contradiction in this context.

As for children, Ksst has a point; we need to strike a balance here. Personally, I'd start by changing the generous tax and welfare incentives for having kids to count only one child at a time, and making it means-tested so only the poor receive them at all. China takes it to extremes, with forced abortions (and varying levels of enforcement, depending how connected you are and where you live: if you're in the countryside it's laxer, for example) but then they are a totalitarian regime prone to such things, and they do have an extreme problem with overpopulation right now - neither applies to us at present, and I hope neither ever does.

The government failed by relaxing regulations that allowed the investors/mortgage lenders to behave irresponsibly.

It's worse than that, in the US at least: the federal government actually mandated lenders lending to poor credit risks, on the rather dim basis that only lending to people who could actually afford the houses was "discrimination" and should be punished. On top of that, of course, they used Fannie and Freddie to channel taxpayers' money into making the problem worse still.

One I heard announced today was a demand to stop making corporations into people, especially the recent supreme court decision letting them dump all kinds of money into campaigns as "free speech".

Which shows that what they really need is some remedial education: the decision merely removed the discrimination between 'media' companies (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times etc) and other companies, that only companies in that first, privileged, category are permitted to express political views at certain times (the period leading up to each election) - it remains illegal for corporations to put money into politicians' campaigns. Remember the context of that ruling: the federal government had banned a movie for being critical of Senator Clinton, and the Obama administration's lawyer argued that it should have the authority to ban books containing political content. Are these protestors really protesting against the First Amendment and in support of censorship?! No doubt some have misunderstood the ruling, or been misled about its actual nature, but the reality is hard to dispute.

ksst

10-28-2011, 08:15 AM

Just about everything to do with having kids is screwed up- unless you're already wealthy, sometimes even then. So everyone will admit that children are needed, I hope, to continue the human race. But if you have kids, most people need two parents working to support them. Then you have to pay some one else a very small amount (although it seems big to the payer) to basically raise your kids 9 hours a day up to school age. When we decided to have kids this equation didn't make sense to me. We discussed who would stay home and my husband basically said, I will stay home if you want to work, but it's not my first choice. My first choice was to stay home. At that point he was in school (post college) and I was the sole earner. He graduated and I gave birth to our first in the same month, then we moved across the county to where he was offered a job. New baby, new city, no friends or relatives. It was hard, but you do what you have to do.

Now that the kids are in school, I'm working part time, but if there is ever a day I have to put them in day care, that, plus my gas to get to work, uses up my paycheck for the day, so I try to avoid doing that and rely on my days off being flexible. I feel I am extremely lucky as far as being able to do this; I know a lot of other parents who have it much harder. Part of it is not luck, though.

As far as the new decision, that was what I was hearing on the radio, I don't claim to really understand the ruling. I hadn't even heard it was about a movie.

js207

10-28-2011, 08:38 AM

Just about everything to do with having kids is screwed up- unless you're already wealthy, sometimes even then. So everyone will admit that children are needed, I hope, to continue the human race.

Rather like the obesity problem: yes, we need food to survive as individuals and kids to survive as a species. Preferably without confusing the two! In both cases, though, we have the problem that we are producing far, far more than is good for us - and in both cases the government's promoting this unhealthy excess for political benefit. Maybe if more of us took a stand against these unhealthy and counterproductive subsidies...

As far as the new decision, that was what I was hearing on the radio, I don't claim to really understand the ruling. I hadn't even heard it was about a movie.

It's sad - the Green Party made a particularly dishonest comment at the time, trying to pretend they were different from other political parties in not taking contributions from corporations and claiming this ruling "hurt" them as a result, while Obama made some rather bizarre and misleading claims, along with dog-whistle xenophobia about "foreign corporations", about it in his State of the Union: apparently in Obama-math, 2002 was "a century" before 2010. Maybe that explains his wonky budget numbers...

Unlike the Green Party, though, he could at least claim to be worse affected than his opponents: the previous censorship law exempted media companies, which largely support him and his party, so he did stand to lose with the restoration of a level playing field.

tedteague

12-21-2011, 10:04 PM

i dont know if anyone still cares or reads about this post, and i didnt read all of it, but ill give my two sense of the occupy movement
1. you can empirically determine that the income inequality gap has increased in the last few decades.
2. as far as i can tell, the occupiers only care about banks getting more money, and most if not all are happy to be cupertino whores
3. most dont know what capitalism is, but they love bashing it. its the same problem as the michael moore movie - bailouts to banks and excessive lobbying is not capitalism, its corporatism.
4. every occupier i know voted for obama, and were all on board for the taarp act when he first took office
5. instead of occupying wall street, they should be complaining to their representatives. if they are the 99%, then they have the power in a democracy/republic/democratic republic. instead of protesting people who are trying to make money, protest the elected officials who do nothing to stop them. even if someone wants socialism, the elected officials are the proper avenue to achieve change, not the people who are literally going to work.
6. everyone who lost their 401 ks back in 2008 benefit from these massive banks succeeding.

denuseri

12-22-2011, 02:56 PM

And when they call their congressman to complain and get a non-returned answering machine because they are not significant enough in their campaign contributions for the congressman to bother responding too what then?

Big business has all the advantages when it comes to lobby efforts, and gets away with "donating" untold amounts of money to anyone they wish to buy off including the purchase of air time for their chosen candidates.

js207

12-22-2011, 03:42 PM

And when they call their congressman to complain and get a non-returned answering machine because they are not significant enough in their campaign contributions for the congressman to bother responding too what then?

Remember it, and vote accordingly: if you don't like the incumbent's policies, vote for the other guy next time, and tell your friends too! That is the essence of democracy - it isn't about phoning someone, or persuading the current guy to vote the way you'd like, but about voting for someone you actually support. If "99%" of the public are really against the bank bailouts and huge payouts for Pelosi-connected "green" companies, the Congressmen, Senators and President behind it all won't stand a chance next time they face the voters - and ultimately it's the votes that matter, however much money a candidate might have. Yes, a well-funded candidate can run lots of ads - that doesn't get them votes unless the voters are actually convinced by the ads!

denuseri

12-22-2011, 05:01 PM

Remember it, and vote accordingly: if you don't like the incumbent's policies, vote for the other guy next time, and tell your friends too! That is the essence of democracy - it isn't about phoning someone, or persuading the current guy to vote the way you'd like, but about voting for someone you actually support. If "99%" of the public are really against the bank bailouts and huge payouts for Pelosi-connected "green" companies, the Congressmen, Senators and President behind it all won't stand a chance next time they face the voters - and ultimately it's the votes that matter, however much money a candidate might have. Yes, a well-funded candidate can run lots of ads - that doesn't get them votes unless the voters are actually convinced by the ads!

Vote for the other guy huh?

You mean the other guy who is backed by almost the same exzact set of corperate bigwigs? That would be all well and good if it worked...notice the trend of the past several decades however...incumbants get voted out all the time and the only thing that changes is the names of the figure heads, Just look at how Obama didnt follow through on anything conserning all that change he talked about for a more recent example.

What we have in actual practice here in America is the illusion of democracy wrapped in a corperately funded oligarchy if you havent noticed.

IAN 2411

12-23-2011, 06:07 AM

I think having more than 2 kids is excessive also, but people do make mistakes.
Why is it excessive? I have four daughters and I can assure you that not one of them was a mistake. I worked and paid taxes giving my wife and me the right to have as many children as we wished within reason. They are grown up married all baring the youngest that lives with me still. Their husbands are all in work...are they lucky...”No” they got off their ass and found work and there is work to be found, I agree with leo9 there are only a few jobs but if you can't be bothered to look you will not find them. In the UK at the moment you have to forget about the job you have been trained for [that is not available] and take another [different job] that is there.

One point I would like to mention is the fact that a lot of students that are going to university are picking classes that have no realistic chances of fast or any employment. There should be more classes teaching the basic needs for the country. You don’t need a thousand architects to build a bridge; you only need one and a good quota of qualified or semi skilled workers. There is a shortage of brick layers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders etc, but if the country can't be bothered to teach them for free then it can only get worse. Asking a person that has been unemployed since he left school to pay for one of those courses is obscene, and I am afraid that is the only way they will get them.

As for the movement, I think we would get more response by blaming the government.
That is the good old standby for having no idea...blame the government of the day.

I don't completely understand the Occupy Wall Street movement, because everyone I've heard interviewed said they have no concrete goals or demands.
They are most probably like the ones here in the UK. If 4 million jobs were placed in front of them tomorrow, you wouldn’t see their ass for dust. They would be rushing home to sit in the armchair complaining about fictitious back injuries while filling in their forms for claiming disability.

Be well IAN 2411

ksst

12-23-2011, 06:43 AM

Well, I certainly didn't mean that people who want large families got there by mistake. I wasn't very clear in my statement. I'm just concerned that we're overfilling the planet and it's going to be hard on our descendants to have so many people here.

I debated long and hard over having any children at all and finally the biological imperative won out, I guess you could say, the desire to reproduce, or to leave posterity, or to have the pitter patter of little darling feet around the house, or comfort for my old age, or whatever reasons were there and we agreed to have kids, which of course I will never regret as I love them immensely. But still, it was a long debate and not an easy decision.

I wish I had had more help in career planning when I was in school. They give you all these choices, but really no information on what you would be good at, or what you can find employment doing, or what is practical. All those "career finder" tests told me I would be good at going to school. Well, there's obviously no money in that, so that was worse than useless.

I know very few people who aren't willing to work if given the opportunity. Very few armchair sitters around here. I do know people who as soon as they go to work their government welfare money is cut back by the same amount that they made, or more, so really, where is the incentive to work there? Not to mention they just lost their government health insurance because they got a poor paying job that provides no insurance.

tedteague

12-23-2011, 06:59 AM

tedteague

12-23-2011, 07:07 AM

And when they call their congressman to complain and get a non-returned answering machine because they are not significant enough in their campaign contributions for the congressman to bother responding too what then?

Big business has all the advantages when it comes to lobby efforts, and gets away with "donating" untold amounts of money to anyone they wish to buy off including the purchase of air time for their chosen candidates.

disregard this message, i didnt mean to reply twice

tedteague

12-23-2011, 07:11 AM

Vote for the other guy huh?

You mean the other guy who is backed by almost the same exzact set of corperate bigwigs? That would be all well and good if it worked...notice the trend of the past several decades however...incumbants get voted out all the time and the only thing that changes is the names of the figure heads, Just look at how Obama didnt follow through on anything conserning all that change he talked about for a more recent example.

What we have in actual practice here in America is the illusion of democracy wrapped in a corperately funded oligarchy if you havent noticed.

Congress has about a 90% re-election rate

denuseri

12-23-2011, 11:58 AM

One may wish to take a course on political science if they think lobbyist and other "influence-rs" of the politicians don't run the show and reap the true benefits of democracy over that of the common people. It is rather naive to think that our system is pure as the driven snow in that regard.

Money talks and bullshit walks as they say.

The only reason incumbents in congress have high re-election rates (at least in the House/ not so much so in the Senate) is the money they receive from the big backers who like maintaining the corporate sided slant of the status qoe gives them a huge advantage.

The corporations and their lobbyists and the politicians all know this even making election rules that favor them.

As for the one donation one vote thing...please! A 500 thousand dollar donation buys omg way more air time in the media and hires large amounts of pr people to put up signs/ make phone calls/ add voice and sway voters than the tiny 100 dollar one ever could.

Who does the candidate listen too once in office?

The small time individual or the big money backers who literally put him in office?

Austerus

12-23-2011, 12:55 PM

The entire reason that money is power in politics is that it buys votes. Money allows a candidate to get more airtime on TV and radio, travel to more towns to meet people and give speeches, spend more on campaign staff, buttons, and bumper stickers. Money determines who gets taken seriously by the media, and who gets left on the shoulder of the road. Yes it's votes that are important, but without money there ARE NO votes, which politicians know perfectly well.

The politicians need money for their campaigns, so they set up a PAC. The PAC then throws events and fundraisers for the politician: "come have a nice barbecue dinner and meet Representative Flootypants!" Lobbyists attend the barbecue and pay a donation to the PAC or directly to the Representative's campaign fund, as a "thank you" for the nice barbecue, and they spend a few minutes talking to Mr. Flootypants about his campaign, what they might be able to do to help. Maybe the lobbyist friend also mentions, in passing, some concern about the idea of greater financial regulation. The important thing though is that he really likes Mr. Flootypants and wants to help him retain his seat so he can continue to be a great leader. Perhaps they even mention that they could help gather and package contributions for such a wise man who helped lead the country so well.

So now the esteemed Congressman on the Finance Committee has a new friend, someone who is really helpful to him. After he wins the election 500 people want meetings with him, want to take an hour of his time in order to talk to him about important topics. Who's he going to meet with? Gramma Millie from Townsville in his district, who sent $20 in to his campaign and wants to talk about how her house got foreclosed on? Or his helpful friend who wants to help educate him on the finer points of the financial industry so that he can make a more informed decision, the guy who helped package $50,000 in donations and managed to get him introductions to three different corporate executives all of whom express an interest in having someone of the Representative's (or his spouse's) caliber sitting on their corporate board.

It's not even a contest. Money wins at every stage. That's why the ONLY issue that matters in politics is campaign finance reform. Until that gets worked out no other matter will ever get settled honestly.

denuseri

12-23-2011, 03:56 PM

I couldn't have said it better myself Austerus!

tedteague

12-23-2011, 06:47 PM

this is the digital age, facebook and twitter are more important than cnn and fox news. money helps, yes, but it only gets you so far. youre also evading my point. politicians would much rather sell out to special interests, but point in fact the PEOPLE PUT THE POLITICIAN IN OFFICE, which once again brings me back to my point: if you are the 99%, and you are as united as you say, capable of organizing nonviolent protests across the country without financial backing, capable of making sure everyone knows what is going there via youtube, facebook, and twitter in spite of zero media coverage, then it shouldnt matter how much money politicians raise, unless of course 1) the 99% is not very united, or 2) the 99% is uninformed.
To suggest it is as simple as raising more money than the other guy in an age where information is so available its impossible to process it all is insulting to the average voter, unless you assume the average voter is an idiot.
Point in fact, ron paul, whose campaign depends almost entirely on private donations from inidiviiduals and gets nearly no media time is leading the gop in iowa right now.
and to austerus, if that grannie who got her home foreclosed is in a society and district that cares about her, people will do something (even though a foreclosed home is totally irrelevant to the conversation), if her district and neighborhood do nothing, then the average voter is interested in the status quo, which makes campaign money irrelevant

Austerus

12-23-2011, 07:39 PM

ted,
Facebook ad Twitter are only more important than traditional media in areas where traditional media has less reach than the internet (i.e. 2nd and 3rd world countries). In fact in many of those countries they aren't as far-reaching as you might think. Take Egypt, a country that had a revolution that was largely reported to be fomented via Twitter, for example. In point of fact most non-college-educated people outside of Cairo and Alexandria don't even have internet access.

The mainstream media and the publishing industry in the developed world are certainly in the process of a fairly quick (historically speaking) downward slide, but they're far from overshadowed by Twitter. Facebook (which has over time stolen all the best features of Twitter) is even less competition, as its private, symmetrical friendship model doesn't lend itself to the kind of wide distribution that Twitter does. Yes, they have amazing penetration with tech-savvy highschool and college students, but they are pretty much completely irrelevant to members of the AARP.

So...I'm not part of the 99%, and I guarantee the 99% isn't organized or united, but that's because the 1% (really a much smaller percentage, but 'We are the 99.99%' isn't nearly as catchy) wants it that way. We (ok they) want people to support our (their) causes, and support the kinds of campaigns and lobbying that convince Joe Sixpack and Mary Minivan that their interests are aligned with ours (theirs) which of course in reality they are not.

Just look at the nonviolent protests that have been organized in the last several years. You have OWS and...the Tea Party. The two biggest protest movements of the last decade basically cancel each other out. It's a giant joke. Of course in reality they both want regulation on Wall Street and accountability for corporate executives, but that's not the way it gets spun. It gets spun as anti-dem or anti-rep, and it all just cancels itself out so that the whole gyroscope can keep spinning.

So, is the 99% not united, or uninformed? BOTH! But that's because there is a lot of money and interest that has a vested interest in keeping it that way. Corporate and political operatives have decades of experience in manipulating the truth, and "new media" isn't nearly mature or vetted enough to counteract the effects of the money and canny influence.

To assume that raising more money is all it takes is insulting to the average voter? Ok, then insult the average voter. So far as I can gather from historical data, candidates who raise more money win 80%+ of the time. Now there's an argument to be made that that isn't causal; rather that the candidate raises more money as an effect rather than a cause. But still. If you can look at one number and determine the election winner with 80% of the time that's pretty good. I'd take that to Vegas.

Yes Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. That's because he's spending like a madman in Iowa, building a crazy organization and praying that he can make enough of a showing there that he will get a fast flood of support and money such that he can set up real campaigns in other states before it is too late. Where else is he leading? What's he going to do when the election goes national and he doesn't have the war chest to put ads on TV or fly to New Mexico for a 3 day barnstorm?

If Grannie is "in a society and district that cares about her?" Man, each congressman in California represents ~700,000 people. Each senator represents 18,000,000 people. How realistic is it to assume that 700,000 people are going to organize to take on a problem for Gramma Mille? Heck, even if there are 1,000 Gramma Millie's, their $20,000 in donations and their high level of community outrage still don't match a single solid lobbyist's $50k plus intros, etc. And that's just ONE GUY.

Claiming that this is all "we the people" and that money doesn't decide elections seems pretty idealistic to me. To an extent of course people get what they deserve in elections, but big money has been the grease on that skid for as long as politicians needed to spend money to get the word out.

Punish_her

12-24-2011, 12:20 AM

ted:
1) money matters
2) are you an expat?
austerus & denu:
1) you either don't give the average american voter enough credit, in which case if he is as uninformed and manipulatable as you think he is, that's depressing
2) I get what you're trying to say, but the math doesn't add up. People calling on behalf of candidate X (hypothetical incumbent) shouldn't matter. If someone lives in district X where representative X is, and district X is an incredibly conservative, catholic district, they wont vote for candidate X if he's pro-life regardless of hwo many signs are on lawns or what have you. Money does not really equal votes, and denu, i've taken my fair share of poli sci classes, and i dont have much respect for the field. So to recap: either voters its are so stupid they vote for whoevers name sounds familiar (and if they're that dumb, special interests groups aren't making a difference anyway), or the 99% likes things the way they are.
My opinion:
nothing will ever change because the average voter is not stupid per se, just really apathetic.
Oh and Ron Paul usually raises more on individual donations then any other candidate, GOP or Dem. It's not as if he's spending all out, it's that the only people who are polled are the ones who really care, the paul nuts 365 days a year

Punish_her

12-24-2011, 12:22 AM

denuseri

12-24-2011, 07:05 AM

1) you either don't give the average american voter enough credit, in which case if he is as uninformed and manipulatable as you think he is, that's depressing

That's not it at all, in fact on average the current American voter is much better educated in some ways than his predecessors were from previous generations. However...the amount of choices he or she has other than a "write in" are limited by a number of factors, chief of which is who got on the ticket and how...the who is very apparent to the voters, its drubbed up sometimes over a year in advance for the big elections...the how (lobbyists actions and super pacs working behind the scenes) not so much. Also the "what exactly will you do about this or that subject" type questions are all neatly sidesteped with sophistry during the elections, or the candidate say they will do X, despite knowing doing X wont be something they can accomplish in that office etc. Though such things are covered extensively in political science, history, and sociology courses. As for not giving what ancient philosophers and other learned men in the past have revered as the "ignorant mob" enough credit....shrugs...the facts don't lie, historically the numbers add up. The corporate oligarchy is limiting the choices of the mob as they see fit to their clear advantage over that of the mob and money is the primary way in which they do it. I too agree that its depressing...at least from the perspective of those who are not super wealthy, but it is understandable, especially when one includes components of mass psychology into the mix along with actual statistical analysis.

2) I get what you're trying to say, but the math doesn't add up.

Actually there are very long historical trends conserning human behavior in this regard that predate the Roman Empire that totally make this all add up. So much so its information thats introduced at the intro level of a number of different courses that deals with issues of political science...its not just called a science to make it sound important.

People calling on behalf of candidate X (hypothetical incumbent) shouldn't matter. If someone lives in district X where representative X is, and district X is an incredibly conservative, catholic district, they wont vote for candidate X if he's pro-life regardless of hwo many signs are on lawns or what have you. Money does not really equal votes, and denu, i've taken my fair share of poli sci classes, (then you should know what I am speaking about) and i dont have much respect for the field. Thats very unfortunate and shortsited, but I would love to hear why not all the same. So to recap: either voters its are so stupid they vote for whoevers name sounds familiar (and if they're that dumb, special interests groups aren't making a difference anyway), or the 99% likes things the way they are. Its more of a mixture...when voters are polled concerning why they voted for some of the lesser offices they do give responses like "I recognized only that guys name" etc or "I didn't have any information on candidate X so I voted party line.

The media has much more to do with it than one may think too...Ron Paul sounds great to some people, they just love him around here...but...almost everyone I know isn't going to vote for him because they "precive" him as not having the same chance or better of ever winning his parties nomination, let alone a Presidential bid and that's totally due to how much media influence Ron Paul has...which is directly proportional to how much money his backers are slinging around. A certian district may be one sided in their views on average...but "collectively" they pretty much act and respond as expected to the certain applications of propaganda..as evidenced historically and starkly by what happened to Germany in the 30"s.

My opinion:
nothing will ever change because the average voter is not stupid per se, just really apathetic.
Oh and Ron Paul usually raises more on individual donations then any other candidate, GOP or Dem. It's not as if he's spending all out, it's that the only people who are polled are the ones who really care, the paul nuts 365 days a year

Herd like complacency and voter apathy also greatly angered the great philosophers of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Xenophon even wrote a nice little book about it.

denuseri

12-24-2011, 07:11 AM

also, i wouldnt say the tea party and ows cancel each other out, but its a good example. In 2010, tea party candidates had a very strong showing, which reflects that grass roots organization is very much a force to be reckoned with.

Which shows that we can still have some hope that once conditions get bad enough human beings will rise up and seek the blood of tyrants to water that ole tree of liberty from time to time. The only problem is how at this stage even the Tea Party's demagoguery wasn't sufficient to allow it to maintain independence...publicly its precieved directly due to the media as having been swallowed in part or whole by the GOP. Which one may have failed to notice was plastered all over the media almost at the first mention of the Tea Party...even though it was initially a completely independent movement, the media "spin" made the reality conform to the lie.

Welcome to 1984 only clothed a bit differently.

tedteague

12-24-2011, 02:25 PM

1) no im not
the tea party isnt one united group, and there's quite a bit of differing opinions from within it. Half of the tea party is neocon and the other half is staunchly libertarian, and the two factions think one another are nutjobs. (for example the tea party began as a libertarian/anarchist movement, and ended up wanting palin to run for office)
and once again, if you're implying that voters know nothing about the issue (which you seem to be if equivocating politicians can sidestep issues so well they never say anything meaningful) or that voters don;t remember simple things like breaking promises (obama said hed close gitmo), then you assume the average voter is uninformed.
either way, there is no conclusion to be reached, and even though i question the words relevance in this sense, it sounds cool, so i wil also say no catharsis will be achieved
happy holidays

Hamishlacastle

12-24-2011, 02:46 PM

Hamishlacastle

12-24-2011, 02:47 PM

B]DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.[/B]if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

js207

12-26-2011, 01:56 PM

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

I'm not sure about voting directly on every issue, but we could certainly do with a lot more direct democracy - in particular, something like California and Switzerland's initiative process: get enough voters to endorse a question, it gets put directly to the electorate in a referendum, the results of which will be binding on the government. In the same way the threat of a Presidential veto can be enough to influence legislative actions, just having the option of overruling the legislature if it gets out of line would be a positive influence.

Thorne

12-26-2011, 08:57 PM

js207

12-28-2011, 10:39 AM

The problem with a direct democracy is that you run the risk of a majority group legislating minority groups out of the system. Civil rights for African Americans probably would not have been able to get past a direct democracy. It took legislators doing what was RIGHT rather than what their constituents may have wanted. You would run into the same thing with gay rights, religious minorities, almost any group with insufficient votes to sway the majority's minds.

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality? Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right. If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is? Yes, there's a risk of a "lynch mob" in individual cases, which is why there are bans on bills of attainder (politicians are just as prone to that kneejerk reaction as the public, if not more so) - but on a policy level, I'm not at all convinced politicians are any better or more trustworthy than the electorate as a whole - and, of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

Thorne

12-28-2011, 02:53 PM

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality?
I didn't say I opposed democracy, only a direct democracy, with every citizen voting on every aspect of law. To be frank, most people, no matter how well educated, do not really understand law. Most think that it only applies to other people, not to them, and that what's good for them must be good for everyone. At least in a democratic republic, which is what the US is supposed to be, the people elect those who are, theoretically, well versed in law and rely on them to do what is right. Sadly, though, that ideal has been corrupted by mass media, among other things. We no longer elect the most qualified, but more often the most photogenic, or the most outspoken. And yes, sad to say that, given the situation as it was in the 50's and 60's, most Americans would probably have voted against the Civil Rights Act. After all, it didn't affect them, only those OTHERS!

Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right.
How is preventing people from limiting or eliminating the rights of a whole group of people morally right? How is giving equal rights to gays any different than giving equal rights to blacks, or to Muslims, or to Catholics, or to anyone else you choose to name? Remember, the majority is not always right.

If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is?
So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.
Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

js207

12-28-2011, 03:27 PM

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

Not frightened people - the populace as a whole, and yes, that is actually pretty much the legal situation, with slight regional variations: if something would be perceived as a significant threat by normal people then the use of (deadly) force is legal. Before you hold up politicians as solving that problem, I should probably remind you Congress has done almost precisely that on multiple occasions in the past - and only admitted to the Census Bureau's rôle in the process in 2007.

No doubt a lot of voters would have voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1963, given the chance, just as a lot of politicians did each time - but considering that the facts that they did elect the President who pushed it, that the House Rules Committee blocked the bill until after JFK's assassination gave LBJ political leverage to pressure them, then had to use backdoor procedural trickery to squeeze it through the Senate with "only" two months of filibusters, after Congress had already rejected the core Title III proposal 3 and 6 years previously, can you really tell me you're sure the same electorate which voted JFK into office would have taken much longer than those six years to approve his proposal?

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

No - because corrupt politicians are screwing over the general population for personal benefit. For the population to screw itself over for its own benefit is a contradictory. They could of course reverse the process, with the broader electorate screwing a smaller subset, but you'll have a hard job convincing those who pay most of the taxes and anyone in an unpopular industry (tobacco, alcohol, fast food, insurance, energy) that isn't what we have right now. When you promise financial benefits to most of the electorate ... well, that's how both the current and previous occupants of the White House got there, and I don't recall anyone calling that corruption yet.

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

Do you really think politicians are significantly better than that? How many of them have even bothered to read, let alone fully understand, the laws they vote on? Remember ObamaCare, with Pelosi's line "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it"? Obama's speech earlier this year, exhorting Congress to pass a bill that hadn't even been written yet?

Thorne

12-29-2011, 07:33 AM

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

Personally, I think the world would be better off if we didn't need governments. But given human nature I know that's a pipe dream. But rule by mob isn't much better than anarchy.

js207

12-29-2011, 07:41 AM

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

No, I was just pointing out that your hypothetical situation has already happened on multiple occasions (only with smaller minorities than 45%) with the current indirect democracy, making it a fatally flawed argument against switching to a more direct form. Yes, in theory it might well to share this flaw with the current system ... so what? That doesn't make it any worse.

Thorne

12-29-2011, 02:53 PM

That doesn't make it any worse.
So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

js207

12-29-2011, 03:23 PM

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

It would be better for everyone else, though - which is generally what we should aim for. Better that than the status quo, where they arrange things for their own benefit at our expense - ObamaCare exemption, generous salaries and other benefits of the job...

Term limits would be a big help I think - or actually, a slight modification of the Russian term limit on Presidents: require everyone running for office to be out of public office for the preceding term. No incumbents, they never get too comfortable living on the public purse - so every Senator would have spent at least six of the last twelve years living as a regular member of the public, dealing with the IRS, TSA and all the other fun things just like everyone else.

That said, I haven't seen any ways direct democracy would be any worse: it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

Thorne

12-30-2011, 06:32 AM

it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?
Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

js207

12-30-2011, 06:44 AM

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

Yes, those elections tend to select for popularity rather than merit - another flaw of the system you're defending/advocating, as it happens...

Of course not everyone thinks it through fully before voting - just look at the catastrophic debt burden of the last few years for proof! I suspect voting on issues rather than candidates would improve that a little, though: easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?

Thorne

12-30-2011, 11:06 AM

easy to vote for party X without thinking, or the candidate with the bigger grin, but yes or no on prop 123?
Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.

denuseri

12-30-2011, 02:26 PM

That still doesn't mean we couldn't have directed voting on different issues and if its something important we can always make it require a 2/3 majority or a complete consensus.

I say cut the corporate owned politicians out of as much as possible!

js207

12-30-2011, 03:38 PM

Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.

Probably true, but not to a greater extent than they do right now with elected representatives - who, in turn, often vote on issues based on nothing better as well. I vaguely recall an experiment someone did in the lead up to the 2008 election, asking those who identified themselves as a supporter of one candidate or the other if they supported their choice because of (opponent's view, misattributed). Some Obama supporters were really enthusiastic about his campaign finance reform legislation and sticking to the public financing system while his opponent opted out, while others were definitely voting for McCain because of his strong pro-choice credentials ... shame they had the two candidates confused there. At the very least, voting directly on issues instead of proxying it by people's names would eliminate that.

I'm not saying to use direct democracy exclusively, voting on every technical detail of every law - just to put the electorate at the top of the chain of command, so taxpayers can override the worst decisions the same way the President can veto them now. If CA can vote to recall bad governors, why can't the US vote to recall bad laws?

StrictMasterD

12-30-2011, 10:54 PM

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

Punish_her

12-31-2011, 02:36 AM

Herd like complacency and voter apathy also greatly angered the great philosophers of ancient Greece and the Roman Republic. Xenophon even wrote a nice little book about it.
No, itsl called a science becaye asshole like sounding important. You cant empirically prove anything, therefore, its not a science, and what numbers add up? ou didnt even say anything. you cant empirically show that more money from superpacs equals more votes, and if you can showa basic, relationship, you cant even prove its causual.

js207

12-31-2011, 03:13 AM

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

The Tea Party's largely fiscal rather than social conservatives, hence their use of the eponymous original Boston tax protests. The OWS crowd don't seem to have as coherent a position, but much of the complaining I've seen so far was about the colossal bailout/stimulus payouts - which would actually mean common ground with the Tea Party on issues, if not party lines. Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...

Thorne

12-31-2011, 05:45 AM

Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...
Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

denuseri

12-31-2011, 08:23 AM

No, itsl called a science becaye asshole like sounding important. You cant empirically prove anything, therefore, its not a science, and what numbers add up? ou didnt even say anything. you cant empirically show that more money from superpacs equals more votes, and if you can showa basic, relationship, you cant even prove its causual.

lol...allrighty then...you go right on thinking its not a science if you want while the people who know it is use what they know to work the system.

Numbers don't lie. Cliometrics and it's uses in Political Science are well known factors that involve a lot of in depth statistical analysis.

If money wasn't a factor Romney wouldn't be pulling back ahead of Newt in the primaries right now.

On another note :

There is a lot of overlap in things the Tea Party and the Occupy movements want and I think they would be better served by combining their independent efforts and dropping or excluding the two primary parties from participation....haven't we seen this before with the Reform and Whig parties back in the day?

denuseri

12-31-2011, 08:38 AM

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

According to Political Science it happens in all forms of government...even small and primitive tribal ones.

The real question is how to make a system that takes all the greed and other bad factors out of play or minimizes them.

Something the framer's of our Constitution knew very well and were very concerned about making allowances for...when you read their personal musing during the process it becomes very apparent that even the most optimistic of them was mired in a very healthy dose of pessimism concerning the nature of their fellows and the effects holding power had upon the human psyche. They knew (as explained in the history of Political Science) that all governments have a tendency; no matter how well intentioned, to eventually move in directions that acquire and secure more and more power for the rulers at the expense of the ruled. Which is why Madison was so big on modeling us on the Romans...His hope was that by adopting what was useful from the worlds longest lasting Republic we would have time to figure this out and change as necessary (hence the elastic clause of the Constitution).

Adding a direct voting element is already in play in a lot of states on different issues and in the entertainment industry.

The main issue at play in the States is usually the item being voted on is an amendment of some kind and worded in such a fashion that only a lawyer can tell you in laymen s terms what happens if its passed or not.

Omega22

12-31-2011, 08:59 AM

Which shows that we can still have some hope that once conditions get bad enough human beings will rise up and seek the blood of tyrants to water that ole tree of liberty from time to time..

democracy makes life of tyrants absolutely safe. instead of taking responsibility fro their actions tyrants just select random fools from big population and uses them as their own representatives, once something gets wrong all you need is to replace representative.

only solution today is going into anarchy, or else this situation will remain indefinitely

The real question is how to make a system that takes all the greed and other bad factors out of play or minimizes them.

current system is based on greed so if you take it out everything will collapse.
however we already had working system without greed in soviet CCCP.
it was quite good, but greed based systems are far more efficient than enthusiasm based systems when lots of resources are available.

Since resources are getting sacred there is no better option than communism, which favors laziness instead of diligence (which is synonym of greed) and if you are greedy then you are forced to feed all lazy ones around. This way resource consumption severely decreases.

Thorne

12-31-2011, 10:14 AM

greed based systems are far more efficient than enthusiasm based systems when lots of resources are available.
"Enthusiasm" based systems don't work if there's no reward for the enthusiastic worker. In the CCCP (USSR) the only "enthusiastic" ones were the political leaders, who were able to get anything they wanted for themselves and their families. The average citizen could look forward to little but more work for no gain, while those who did no work still got fed, clothed and housed.

Since resources are getting sacred there is no better option than communism, which favors laziness instead of diligence (which is synonym of greed) and if you are greedy then you are forced to feed all lazy ones around.
So you're better off being lazy? You get fed, and you don't have to work! Sounds great to me.

This way resource consumption severely decreases.
Which means everyone but the guy with the resources starves. Sounds like the USSR, all right.

Punish_her

12-31-2011, 10:59 AM

holy shit was i drunk last night

js207

12-31-2011, 10:59 AM

Omega22

12-31-2011, 02:48 PM

"Enthusiasm" based systems don't work if there's no reward for the enthusiastic worker. In the CCCP (USSR) the only "enthusiastic" ones were the political leaders, who were able to get anything they wanted for themselves and their families. The average citizen could look forward to little but more work for no gain, while those who did no work still got fed, clothed and housed.
their leaders were mostly terminally ill old men who were incapable even to steal stuff anymore.
When we talk about rewards it should be something else than money. It can be satisfaction with your work and fame.

So you're better off being lazy? You get fed, and you don't have to work! Sounds great to me.
you still have to work something or you will be bored to death. it is just that if you want something more than basic living conditions you need to work and feed those who are satisfied by that.
in other words it is taxing of greed. better living standards you require more taxes you pay.
we don't need to promote consumption we need to force people to lower their living requirements. Don't buy all crap and there will be no need to make it. So you can be lazy if someone wants lots of crap like IPad or plasma TV or big new car then he can donate something for others.

Which means everyone but the guy with the resources starves. Sounds like the USSR, all right.
and what he is going to do with these raw resources? just dont let him to sell them and problem solved.
also resources should be taxed, so if you hog something you pay.

I am not suggesting to turn US into USSR
USSR had lots of problems but it also had lots of good stuff. unfortunately communism was too early at that time.
today efficiency is improved in may orders of magnitude and everything is different.
You have no choice. Capitalism is going to fail soon, or everything will turn into living hell.

Thorne

12-31-2011, 07:56 PM

When we talk about rewards it should be something else than money. It can be satisfaction with your work and fame.
That will only take you so far. When you find yourself working long hours, sacrificing free time, and getting little more than the lazy neighbor next door, the satisfaction fades pretty quickly. And who needs fame?

you still have to work something or you will be bored to death. it is just that if you want something more than basic living conditions you need to work and feed those who are satisfied by that.
There are many ways to avoid boredom. And if you have to work to feed not only yourself but someone else boredom seems the lesser evil.

in other words it is taxing of greed. better living standards you require more taxes you pay.
And how do you pay those taxes without gaining any reward? I won't work to make just enough to survive, so that others can also survive. I don't mind paying my fair share, but not to waste it on derelicts and slackers.

we don't need to promote consumption we need to force people to lower their living requirements.
Why? So everyone can be miserable? The whole point of consumption is that it promotes better living conditions for all.

Don't buy all crap and there will be no need to make it.
Then there will be no jobs. More people sucking at the government teat.

So you can be lazy if someone wants lots of crap like IPad or plasma TV or big new car then he can donate something for others.
Forced taxation is far different than donations. Forced donations is simply taxation. Again, what's the benefit for the worker?

and what he is going to do with these raw resources? just dont let him to sell them and problem solved.
If he can't eat them, he'll trade them. With someone else who can't sell them. Don't tell me that there was no black market in the USSR.

also resources should be taxed, so if you hog something you pay.
Earning through your own labor is hardly hogging resources. One way or another you pay.

USSR had lots of problems but it also had lots of good stuff.
Like what?

today efficiency is improved in may orders of magnitude and everything is different.
Tell that to the people starving in North Korea. Tell that to the pre-capitalist Chinese. Any efficiency, whether in farming or manufacturing, has come from capitalist countries.

You have no choice. Capitalism is going to fail soon, or everything will turn into living hell.
Maybe so, but going back to an already failed system won't prevent that. The USSR was already a living hell before the collapse.

Omega22

01-01-2012, 07:05 AM

That will only take you so far. When you find yourself working long hours, sacrificing free time, and getting little more than the lazy neighbor next door, the satisfaction fades pretty quickly. And who needs fame?
so dont work long hours, work only a little as much as you really need. All overworking is just waste of sacred resources.

There are many ways to avoid boredom. And if you have to work to feed not only yourself but someone else boredom seems the lesser evil.
any examples what are you doing to do? so you are living is some shitty house get shitty food and you just lay on the bed and watch TV all year.
I think no sane human will we able to be that lazy. But it is good, because if you don't move you conserve energy and you will be cheap to feed.

And how do you pay those taxes without gaining any reward? I won't work to make just enough to survive, so that others can also survive. I don't mind paying my fair share, but not to waste it on derelicts and slackers.

They get reward, and quite a big one. I don't say you must work for free you just pay about 90-95% of taxes. and you only get to keep 10%, but that 10 % is way more than you get doing nothing.

Why? So everyone can be miserable? The whole point of consumption is that it promotes better living conditions for all.
this is no longer the point, because we do not have enough resources to consume. It is dead end.
You simply cant continue that way of life anymore. you have either fight with all world to take their resources or reduce your consumption.

Then there will be no jobs. More people sucking at the government teat.
then maybe we should pay people for littering and then pay other people for cleaning?
making and buying crap is same as just burning stuff. it does not make your life better.
to make it better you need correct jobs like improving infrastructure and inventing new better tools not just produce useless ipads that go to trash can next year.

Forced taxation is far different than donations. Forced donations is simply taxation. Again, what's the benefit for the worker?
he gets benefit to live in better conditions than everyone else.

If he can't eat them, he'll trade them. With someone else who can't sell them. Don't tell me that there was no black market in the USSR.
there was no point in black market, because resources were dirt cheap. Only problem was getting consumable goods.

Earning through your own labor is hardly hogging resources. One way or another you pay.
If you buy land then you take it away from public use thats hogging of resources. and you must pay big taxes fro owning that land.
if you by car you also hog some amount of metal and plastic which is not available for public use anymore.

Like what?
life USSR was really calm without any competition and stress, you had all your basic needs fulfilled. there was no need to fight for your place when you finish high school government gives you some job and place to live. then you work something and live easy boring life. However, if you need something above basic living it gets really hard to obtain.

Tell that to the people starving in North Korea. Tell that to the pre-capitalist Chinese. Any efficiency, whether in farming or manufacturing, has come from capitalist countries.
their only problem is lack of modern tools dont forget that these people do not feed on gasoline like US
they use their muscle power instead of machines. give modern farm equipment to Koreans and they will feed themselves with no problems.
Us is not in better situation, because these nations at least produce everything they need, unlike US who produces only half of what it consumes and rest goes in debt.
Isn't it funny that USSR is lending money to US?

Maybe so, but going back to an already failed system won't prevent that. The USSR was already a living hell before the collapse.
It was not hell at all only problem there was that life was quite boring. system failed because it went ahead of time. it is like capitalism in stone age.
However you still have no choice if you don't limit consumption you will by limited by law of conservation of mass and energy.
You cant indefinitely increase consumption of limited resources.
in the end it will result war between these who hogged all resources and these who are starving because they cant get anything.

Thorne

01-01-2012, 08:54 AM

I don't say you must work for free you just pay about 90-95% of taxes.
And what does that work gain me? I get the same thing as the lazy bum next door. If I want anything else I buy it with my 10%. Except, there isn't anything to buy, because nobody is making anything!

Only problem was getting consumable goods.
Exactly! Because no one was working to make consumable goods. So what good is your 10%?

If you buy land then you take it away from public use thats hogging of resources. and you must pay big taxes fro owning that land.
if you by car you also hog some amount of metal and plastic which is not available for public use anymore.
This makes no sense. What is the public going to do with the land, or the plastic? They have no money to do anything with it!

when you finish high school government gives you some job and place to live. then you work something and live easy boring life. However, if you need something above basic living it gets really hard to obtain.
Sounds idyllic. Not.

their only problem is lack of modern tools dont forget that these people do not feed on gasoline like US
they use their muscle power instead of machines. give modern farm equipment to Koreans and they will feed themselves with no problems.
Ahh, so we should stop using resources and just give them to Koreans, so they can use them instead of us. Again, why?

Isn't it funny that USSR is lending money to US?
There IS no USSR. Russia MAY be lending us money, I don't know. But that's beside the point. Where are the Russians getting the money in the first place? By manufacturing products and selling them! Using resources. And getting wealthier. Basically, becoming capitalists.

Omega22

01-02-2012, 06:38 AM

And what does that work gain me? I get the same thing as the lazy bum next door. If I want anything else I buy it with my 10%. Except, there isn't anything to buy, because nobody is making anything!
money doesn't work in that way, if you got 10% then you still produced 100% of something but 90% or your stuff you give to 100 lazy bums and 10% keep for yourself. in result you still live 10 times better that these lazy people.
the whole point is to limit greed, so that you would not have any desire to work more than you really need.

Exactly! Because no one was working to make consumable goods. So what good is your 10%?
it has nothing to do with USSR
it was completely different instead of getting 10% you were paid fixed amount independent of how much you work. and you had to fulfill some arbitrary norms.

This makes no sense. What is the public going to do with the land, or the plastic? They have no money to do anything with it!
you know sometimes you may need to build a road or use it for recreation.
or just build a house where you like. just because someone claimed land as his property first, that doesn't give him right to hog it or ask me to pay.

Sounds idyllic. Not.
that was quite fine for most people.

Ahh, so we should stop using resources and just give them to Koreans, so they can use them instead of us. Again, why?
well you dont need to do that if you don't mind to start world war 3 or suffer from terrorist attacks.
alternatively you coudl just kill all these poor people
they wont stai as dumb as they are indefinitely soon they will identify who is parasite sucking their blood and will try to do something.

There IS no USSR. Russia MAY be lending us money, I don't know. But that's beside the point. Where are the Russians getting the money in the first place? By manufacturing products and selling them! Using resources. And getting wealthier. Basically, becoming capitalists.
they do not manufacture anything, they just sell oil and other resources.
if they were like US they would consume everything themselves and you would get nothing.
in fact they give everything for free because it is obvious that neither US neither EU will ever pay their debts.

most likely in 2030 there will be some war or other kind of apocalypse when these idiots will stop giving goods for US and EU for free.
and since we do not have anything anymore, we will starve to death or most likely we will attack these poor countries to suck their last drops of blood and then we will start killing each other.

Thorne

01-02-2012, 09:14 AM

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

just because someone claimed land as his property first, that doesn't give him right to hog it or ask me to pay.
Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

And that seems to be the crux of Omega22's complaints: Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. And it also seems to be the problem of the OWS movement, too. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Until the poor have the money, and then they'll complain about having to pay the taxes.

soon they will identify who is parasite sucking their blood and will try to do something.
The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!

IAN 2411

01-02-2012, 10:45 AM

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

What a surprise, I asked this same question of someone the other day and they accused me of living off their taxes because I was a pensioner. As soon as I said one of my pensions was an Army war disability pension, I was accused of defrauding the government because I could still [would you believe] walk.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter.

It is in that statement that you have hit the nail on the head. In one word it’s, “Jealousy.” Most of the people complaining have not yet got to retirement age, but they want the perks that the secure not wealthy pensioners get without paying into the pot. As far as I am concerned they can sit outside St Pauls until their balls drop off from the cold weather that is about to hit them. I would think that most of them are on benefits anyway, and as they are not seeking employment they should lose that.

Be well IAN 2411

Omega22

01-02-2012, 11:25 AM

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.
You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.
You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!
So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well, but you will notice that you have no place to live anymore, because they doesn't need your hard work, they only need your land.

The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!
Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?
I guess it is not these poor uneducated people.
And I think you know what happens to government that refuse to obey, they all end like Qaddafi and Saddam.

IAN 2411

01-02-2012, 12:16 PM

You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

It was such a good system that they pushed walls over to get out of it. What you’re saying is that you don’t want to work, and everyone should do the same so that you don’t feel guilty.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

By those remarks, so too is every bus, taxi, lorry driver. Military aircraft, ship and vehicle that looks after your ass. They are all burning your air without thinking of you. Is it because you don’t own anything of value you feel that no one else should either. There is nothing stopping you earning money and flying anywhere.

So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well.
I find that hard to believe, they might take a look at the west see the state it’s in, give you a couple of hundred £/$ to keep it and piss home.

Be well IAN 2411

Thorne

01-02-2012, 12:47 PM

You miss my point.
Probably because I haven't been able to see one.

I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor.
Are you kidding? The USSR was one of the worst polluters in the history of the planet!

Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
Then maybe we need to start looking OFF of the Earth.

we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.
But it's the lazy bums who are increasing the population! The workers know enough to limit the number of children, generally. It's the uneducated, unemployed, lazy bums who have nothing to do but screw all day that are bringing more and more kids into the world for the workers to feed.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii.
I haven't been on a plane in more than 10 years, and almost all of my plane trips were work related, earning those privileges which you want for nothing.

You are burning what belongs to everyone.
I am burning what I've paid for with my hard work! Or aren't I part of "everyone"? If I decide NOT to use gasoline so that you can have more, what are you going to do with it? Give it away to someone less fortunate than yourself? Sooner or later, someone is going to burn it! And if I can pay for it, than I say I should be the one to do it.

If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.
And just how am I preventing you from getting your share? Oh, that's right! You deserve it because you were born! Well, do like the oil companies did! Go out and find the oil, and drill for it, and transport it to your refinery, and turn it into gasoline! What? You don't have a refinery? Well, then you'll have to build one. Or maybe you can rent one from your neighbor. He'll probably do it for a share of "your" oil. And don't forget to give him HIS share, too. Even though he hasn't gone and dug it up himself.

Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?
At one time it was the USSR. I'm sure the Chinese are still supporting North Korea, too.

tedteague

01-12-2012, 07:18 PM

lol...allrighty then...you go right on thinking its not a science if you want while the people who know it is use what they know to work the system.

Numbers don't lie. Cliometrics and it's uses in Political Science are well known factors that involve a lot of in depth statistical analysis.

If money wasn't a factor Romney wouldn't be pulling back ahead of Newt in the primaries right now.

On another note :

There is a lot of overlap in things the Tea Party and the Occupy movements want and I think they would be better served by combining their independent efforts and dropping or excluding the two primary parties from participation....haven't we seen this before with the Reform and Whig parties back in the day?

How can you establish an empirical, causal connection between campaign contributions and candidate electability. One could say that Huntsman receives no money because he is not popular, OR that he is not popular because he receives no money from PACs and special interest groups. This is my problem with the social sciences AS A WHOLE. the only two I can tolerate are econometrics (not micro or macro) and Psychology. The others don't seem to establlish much of a conclusion. And econ is rapdily losing any of the meager credibility it had before

leo9

01-22-2012, 12:04 PM

How can you establish an empirical, causal connection between campaign contributions and candidate electability. One could say that Huntsman receives no money because he is not popular, OR that he is not popular because he receives no money from PACs and special interest groups. This is my problem with the social sciences AS A WHOLE. the only two I can tolerate are econometrics (not micro or macro) and Psychology. The others don't seem to establlish much of a conclusion. And econ is rapdily losing any of the meager credibility it had beforeNine tenths of the economists spent the last ten years telling us the world economy was getting better and better and nothing could possibly go wrong. The other tenth who told us we were riding for a fall were starting from exactly the same data and theories, so the fact that they were right just shows that they had better intuition, nothing to do with science.

As for psychology, it fails all the tests of a real science: its propositions cannot be falsified, its predictions do not come right more often than chance, and there is no objective way to test one theory against another. All successful schools of clinical psychology are based on the simple fact that most people can heal their own mental problems if they can talk to someone non-judgemental for long enough. It doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the listener calls hirself Freudian, Jungian, NLP, CBT, Behaviourist or whatever, so long as se has the nous to keep quiet and let the patient talk hirself out of trouble.

thir

01-23-2012, 10:20 AM

Nine tenths of the economists spent the last ten years telling us the world economy was getting better and better and nothing could possibly go wrong. The other tenth who told us we were riding for a fall were starting from exactly the same data and theories, so the fact that they were right just shows that they had better intuition, nothing to do with science.

Or maybe the guts to stand up to status quo?

As for psychology, it fails all the tests of a real science: its propositions cannot be falsified, its predictions do not come right more often than chance, and there is no objective way to test one theory against another. All successful schools of clinical psychology are based on the simple fact that most people can heal their own mental problems if they can talk to someone non-judgemental for long enough. It doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the listener calls hirself Freudian, Jungian, NLP, CBT, Behaviourist or whatever, so long as se has the nous to keep quiet and let the patient talk hirself out of trouble.

While I find it horrible the way psychology is taken as an exact science to the extent of determining people's fates in a number of situations, I think this statement it going to far in the other direction.

Originaly psychologists were armchair thinkers and moralists, and there are lots of those still, to be true. But these days at least we have some imperical research as in collecting lots of material and comparing it all.

For example we have the big American and Norwegian investigations showing that people inot BDSM are no different from a vanilla control group. Or to put it in other words: we are normal. Meaning no disrespect to anyone ;-)

As for talk, there are those who have a sublime knack of helping people asking themselves the right questions, and thereby helping them rather better than just letting them talk. Also compiling info about special groups - alchoholics, junkies, terminally ill people, people who have been in wars or terrible accidents and so on have shown useful. For instance we know now why KZ prisoners and some soldiers can have so strange problems and act to weirdly.

But it is not an exact science and should not be treated as such.