Occupy Wall Street Movement

[leo9]

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]

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, 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.

[Thorne]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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-...#ixzz1bcNpHW83

[js207]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

donations aren't votes. its not about lobbying its about how many people will show up to vote. if a millionaire contributes 500,000 to a campaign, guess what? its still 1 vote, as opposed to the 500,000 people who donate nothing but have 500,000 % more say in politics. the reasoning that its all about lobbying indicates 2 things: 1 the average voter is painfully uninformed (in which case they reap what they sow) or 2: the average voter maintains the status quo (in which case they reap what they sow).

[tedteague]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I couldn't have said it better myself Austerus!

[tedteague]

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]

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.