Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 07:45 AM CDT

Quote by: bud Quote by: musichead From the interviews of the people at these rallies. They don't know why they are there. They just know they are mad about being poor. I found as younger man that education was the key. Take a few economic classes and understand how it all works. I had too. In order to break out of the 99%. Yes folks Im a capitalist. But I worked hard and long hours to get what I needed and wanted.But someone please tell me the average take on occupying? Ive heard so many reasons that it just doesn't seem clear. Ive seen so many different complaints. Education and organization. Its what this movement lacks! I'm not sure where you are getting your info from - but I find that there is a very clear understanding about why the occupations have gained so much strength and popularity. People are finally protesting the unbalanced influence that financial institutions and some corporations have over our government - the corruption within our system that lets this condition thrive - and the lack of accountability and prosecution for the gross malfeasance that precipitated our current economic condition. There are many other issues that fall under this umbrella - equitable taxation - corporate personhood - quality of education etc. But the overwhelming sense of having lost a voice - and lost an identity as middle class Americans is what resonates with most of the people I'm in touch with. The movement is not anti-capitalist at it's core - it's about justice and accountability.

Granted, you all have a semi-coherent message at this point. The problem now is, who are you all voting for? My guess... Obama overwhelmingly. (Not that a republican other than maybe Ron Paul would make any changes either). How does that change anything?

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 07:55 AM CDT

Quote by: bud I can only speak for myself when I say that any fundamental change in our system of taxation and spending has to begin with accountability. Some believe that our government is unable to manage our tax dollars - therefore we should limit or reduce taxation. I can see the merit in that thinking. I think of a child that is given a large bowl of cereal for breakfast each morning and eats only 1/3 of it and the rest ends up on the floor. Is it possible that if that same child were given 1/3 the starting amount that it would eat it all and waste none of it? If it repeated the original behavior would it learn to change through the experience of hunger? Is 1/3 of a bowl enough cereal to sustain that child? Or is it hungry in 2 hours and looking for more? In fiscal year 2010, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion. Of that $3.5 trillion, almost $2.2 trillion was financed by federal tax revenues. The remaining $1.3 trillion was financed by borrowing; this deficit will ultimately be paid for by future taxpayers. Here's a spending breakdown issued by The White House: National Defense 26.3% Health Care 24.3% Job and Family Security 21.9% Education and Job Training 4.8% Veterans Benefits 4.1% Natural Resources, Energy and Environment 2.1% International Affairs 1.7% Science, Space, and Technology Programs 1.2% Immigration, Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 2.0% Agriculture 0.8% Community, Area, and Regional Development 0.5% Response to Natural Disasters 0.4% Additional Government Programs 2.4% Net Interest 7.4% I'm not proposing cuts or adds - but just presenting the most accurate (and I might add conservative) estimate I could find from multiple sources. Our defense budget is often overstated. The White House report has it at the top of the list at 26.3% not including Veterans benefits which would bring it to 30.4%. In fact many numbers are overstated or misrepresented - and my information is likely incorrect to a degree but seems to reflect some consensus. With enforced taxation of corporations (starting with codes already on the books), proposed taxation of bank financial transfers, and a restructuring of the tax code that tries to level the playing field - perhaps these initiatives along with strict accountability could at least stop the bleeding occurring at the rate of $1.3 trillion a year. This is the tab we are asking our children to pick up. Can we do this without reducing social programs? Can we spend more than 3% on education? I hope so.

Bud, it has been shown over and over again. If we got another 1.3 trillion to the government to close the budget gap, they would spend another 2 trillion over that. To a politician, spending is just a number and a way to garner votes and campaign contributions. The only way to cut the government's waste is to force them to. I think that the 1.3 trillion shortfall needs to be cut from the budget... period.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 08:02 AM CDT

Quote by: crissew Quote by: bud Quote by: musichead From the interviews of the people at these rallies. They don't know why they are there. They just know they are mad about being poor. I found as younger man that education was the key. Take a few economic classes and understand how it all works. I had too. In order to break out of the 99%. Yes folks Im a capitalist. But I worked hard and long hours to get what I needed and wanted.But someone please tell me the average take on occupying? Ive heard so many reasons that it just doesn't seem clear. Ive seen so many different complaints. Education and organization. Its what this movement lacks! I'm not sure where you are getting your info from - but I find that there is a very clear understanding about why the occupations have gained so much strength and popularity. People are finally protesting the unbalanced influence that financial institutions and some corporations have over our government - the corruption within our system that lets this condition thrive - and the lack of accountability and prosecution for the gross malfeasance that precipitated our current economic condition. There are many other issues that fall under this umbrella - equitable taxation - corporate personhood - quality of education etc. But the overwhelming sense of having lost a voice - and lost an identity as middle class Americans is what resonates with most of the people I'm in touch with. The movement is not anti-capitalist at it's core - it's about justice and accountability. Granted, you all have a semi-coherent message at this point. The problem now is, who are you all voting for? My guess... Obama overwhelmingly. (Not that a republican other than maybe Ron Paul would make any changes either). How does that change anything?

It's not a matter of who anyone votes for really - this is not a political movement. It's about justice and human rights. The object is to influence the national dialogue - to have an impact on both sides of the aisle - to put all candidates on notice that they represent us and not the corporations and we will hold them accountable for their actions.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 08:05 AM CDT

Quote by: crissew Bud, it has been shown over and over again. If we got another 1.3 trillion to the government to close the budget gap, they would spend another 2 trillion over that. To a politician, spending is just a number and a way to garner votes and campaign contributions. The only way to cut the government's waste is to force them to. I think that the 1.3 trillion shortfall needs to be cut from the budget... period.

You're entitled to your opinion.
Is choking off the revenue stream going to be effective if there isn't emphasis on accountability and oversight in place? Before I would cut off my kids allowance - I'd teach him about responsible money management. If I never held him accountable - I helped create the problem.
Increased pressure from the public and petitioning for oversight seems to me to be a more lasting solution than cutting the funds as a tough love approach.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 08:59 AM CDT

Quote by: crissew I think that the 1.3 trillion shortfall needs to be cut from the budget... period.

Most of the deficit is debt servicing. Are you proposing that the US default? Period?

Victor

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 09:45 AM CDT

All I was saying is Im not the type that sits around a complains about things or go out and protest. Im in the 99%. But that don't mean I like it. But instead I chose to be the type that goes out and tries to use the rules set forth to help me instead of hurt me attitude. I still say education is the key. But we lost our voice back in the late 1800's.( just my opinion) And my sources are any News station. I watch them all. It was clear they where very mad, but couldn't explain why. This was about two weeks ago. Im not against whats going on .

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 12:48 PM CDT

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
~Ronald Reagan

Forgive the link to an off-site post, but it contains material well worth reading.

50 Quotes Americans Should Remember

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 12:52 PM CDT

Quote by: musichead All I was saying is Im not the type that sits around a complains about things or go out and protest. Im in the 99%. But that don't mean I like it. But instead I chose to be the type that goes out and tries to use the rules set forth to help me instead of hurt me attitude. I still say education is the key. But we lost our voice back in the late 1800's.( just my opinion) And my sources are any News station. I watch them all. It was clear they where very mad, but couldn't explain why. This was about two weeks ago. Im not against whats going on .

I can sing this on a song ...

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 01:59 PM CDT

Interesting:

Shortly after taking office, President Obama reacted to Wall Street bonuses handed out in January 2009 with incredibly harsh language, calling them “shameful” and “the height of irresponsibility.”

“Folks on Wall Street who are asking for help need to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility,” he said. A few months later, Obama pledged that there would be “no more bonuses for companies that taxpayers are helping out,” calling them a violation of “our fundamental values.”

But by far the biggest recipient of bailout money are the two government-linked lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have paid millions in bonuses while the White House remains curiously silent:

Not only where they at the epicenter of the housing bubble, but also the government had to take them over, pumping in cash to cover their huge losses on the mortgages they owned and guaranteed. And far from paying taxpayers back, the best-case scenario for Fannie and Freddie is that their bailout will cost over $120 billion.

But that didn’t stop the two agencies from giving their top 10 executives $12.8 million in bonuses for meeting what have been charitably described as “modest goals.”

When asked about it on Tuesday, press secretary Jay Carney washed the administration’s hands of the matter. “These entities are independent and therefore they are independent decisions,” he said. “The White House is not involved, and nor should it be.”

Occupy White House?

... and as a kicker:

Government-controlled mortgage giant Freddie Mac has just requested $6 billion in additional aid after posting a wider loss in the third quarter 2011.

Freddie Mac said Thursday that it lost $6 billion, or $1.86 per share, in the July-September quarter. That compares with a loss of $4.1 billion, or $1.25 a share, in the same quarter of 2010.

This quarter’s $6 billion request from taxpayers is the largest since April 2010.

Re:Occupy MacJams
Thursday, November 03 2011 @ 02:41 PM CDT

I cannot shake the feeling that I am part of the 100%.

I feel as akin to Buffet as to his secretary.

The lack of responsibility, and the deceitful, unscrupulous and/or larcenous actions that resulted from that lack of responsibility, should be the basis of critique, not "fairness." Questions of fairness too often lead to "when will I get mine?" Questions of responsibility usually lead to "is everyone holding up their end of the bargain?" Responsibility is about doing your part to maintain interconnected achievement.

I believe in a certain form of capitalism, the one founded on the relationship between liberty, private property and human dignity, the one that protects the self-owernship of one's own body and labor and fruits of that labor... because it seems to work better than other systems at creating wealth (and alleviating poverty), and because it seems to protect liberty better than most other systems. But it is a system that requires laws to make sure deception, coercion, monopoly and wealth consolidation do not distort economic activities.

I worry that the Occupy Wall Street movement is embracing an anti-capitalist revolution, or, as Michael Moore has stated, wants to throw out the present day capitalist system and build a new "democratic" economic system. As the days go on, his comments become more strident, along with many in the Oakland camp.

Most of the people I know simply want a return to what, in our nostalgia for the past, we recall as the owner/worker contract of our parents' day, when the wealthy supplied the risk/assets/loans to establish companies that created jobs and the workers supply honest labor, etc., and everyone shared (if not equally, at least contentedly) in the fruits of this symbiosis. Some of these wealthy folks even built libraries, colleges, performing arts complexes, fueled most charity organizations. Yes, there were abuses, huge ones, but the belief persevered. I'm afraid this belief is being destroyed, deliberately.

When a few workers behave irresponsibly, the result is merely a lessening of productivity. When a few wealthy members of the ownership class (including politicians) behave irresponsibility, it makes the entire capitalist system appear immoral, rigged, flawed at it's root; and it makes workers look like chumps, chattel, collateral damage.

I worry that the OWS movement paints all owners, all people making more than a certain amount of money, as willing manipulators in this insidious game. But most businesses just want to make stuff, sell stuff, succeed, obey the law. Most businessmen are in the same boat we are. Most owners are struggling to survive. I fear that the sense of mutual interdependence between owners and workers is being torn apart, not healed or helped. How can we help businesses (even corporations) succeed? Without them, there will be no taxes to collect. Conversely, how can we succeed alongside (or inside) of them?

All this comes at a time when the western world appears to have crossed the threshold into too much debt. Our political process isn't even a "process" anymore.

But the cure has everything to do with being able to come to some sort of place where we can agree on something. Where we can think clearly and honestly. Where we can act in a mutually responsible way. Where we can all be part of the 100%...

My parents were both below the poverty level in the 1930s (if there would've been one), yet they never considered themselves poor. My mother's parents often fed hobos who came to their backdoor. Even the homeless were part of the 100%. My father, who as a fatherless teenager survived on public assistance (at the city level) fought in WWII, bought his first house with G.I. housing assistance, and eventually became a small company president and community leader. You can bet he felt like part of the 100%. I hope for a day we can all feel responsible for each other again, thankful for each other, proud of each other.

Call it "responsibility nostalgia."