Occupy Protests now trying to shut down Ports...

Post Reply New Topic

You left student loan forgiveness off of that list, but I don't blame you for doing so. It is one of Occupy's least defensible positions. Why should someone who chose to take out a loan to get a degree in Art History, for example, and now can't find a job have that loan forgiven at taxpayer expense? Why is there this push toward shielding everyone from responsibility?

Well you can't really expect someone to pay back loans if they don't have enough income to do so.

Maybe it's the fact that we have a society/culture that teaches children BS lies and false optimism. "You can be anything you want when you grow up". "Study hard, keep a high grade-point average, and put yourself through college, and you will have a better future".

In most cases it was parents who never went to college pushing their children to take out expensive college loans. It is the baby boomer generation that lived through a period of exceptional social change and economic growth pushed the idea that everything would continue on getting better for future generations as it did for them. This got idea passed on. America became country devoid of realism. The shear amount of BS people are fed is unfathomable. Everywhere you turn you are fed BS, mostly from unscrupulous people and institutions that are trying to make a profit off your gullibility.

If they can't pay they can't pay. I'm certainly not advocating locking people up in debtors prisons.

+1

I wasn't purposefully leaving less defensible points of protest off the list or anything, just named the first ones that came to mind

And fnord, regarding your point about talking to other Occupy members who said different things than I did, of course there's going to be diversity in views as it's metaphorical aim is to encompass 99% of people.

Every movement throughout the history of America and the world, every single series of protests that have ever happened throughout history, have, at the time, received similar flack as what you're saying about Occupy. "What's the point of these protests! They won't accomplish anything! They're disruptive!" etc. Time will tell. I respect that you personally don't want to get involved/support the protests, that's completely your right. But I'd rather try to change the world for the better than sit on my ass and do nothing (I'm not in any way passive aggressively saying that's what you're doing, just talking about myself and what I view as my own options). I do appreciate debate, but I don't like being disrespected by being referred to as a "self-righteous hypocrite" (since I'm part of the group you said that about). I 100% agree with you that I would be if I were wanting "the rich" to give up all of their earthly belongings, but that's not what I want and I live my life in a way that is consistent, even adjusting for difference in wealth, to how I would expect those at the top to. And I have been involved in something Occupy-related almost every day since early October, whether it be attending a general assembly or participating in a march (etc), so I feel that I am very knowledgeable about this movement.

Say what you will regarding personal responsibility, claiming people who were basically lied to deserved what came to them is awfully cold.

It's the same thing with the banks and the sh***y loans they gave out like candy. The people are to be held responsible, but the bank CEOs and management who decided to push garbage loans and profit off trading the resulting CDO have zero responsibility for the havoc they unleashed. The corrupt credit ratings agencies also have zero responsibility for their role.

These things are what piss people off.

Another thing that doesn't get acknowledge is the ridiculous rise in cost of college education. Tuition has gone up at a much higher rate than average inflation and at a much higher rate than wages have gone up.

1. Corporate money in politics, ie: corporations being given person-hood, with massive campaign contributions influencing legislature.

AFAIK, corporate personhood can only be invoked as a shield and not a sword. e.g. corporate personhood protects a corporation against arbitrary investigation (being investigated as if you're a suspect, even if you're not one). Common law may have stretched this doctrine beyond its intention, but I'm not sure about that.

About campaign contributions: frankly I don't know the extent to which corporate money influences politics in the US, but campaigns are expensive things to run. Without contributions, the only ones who can run for terms are those who can personally fund it.

2. The response of the financial industry to our $700 billion-plus bailout: they paid themselves outrageous bonuses ($20.8 billion in 2010 alone), fired thousands of people, and continue to sit on multibillion dollar cash hordes all while refusing to lend, with no big-bank CEOs being held responsible despite the fact that they are doing this all with government money, ie: our taxes.

I don't like it either, but when you give somebody something, you can't tell them what to do with it. And the reason why banks are sitting on money is because of a global credit crunch; hell I wouldn't want them to lend out money in this risky environment anyway.

3. Wall Street’s securities-trading firms earned more in the first two and a half years of the Obama administration ($83 billion) than they did during eight years of the G.W. Bush administration ($77 billion), the Washington Post reported. So why aren’t they hiring, lending or doing mortgage modifications?

From a business standpoint, just because you're getting profits doesn't mean you should hire. why incur the additional personnel cost? the only reason for hiring is expansion.
cf. the point above for lending and mortgages.

4. Disturbing corporate profit tactics like when Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, etc. packaged high risk mortgages — the kind pretty much anyone would be eligible for, without even having to prove income — into something they called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDOs). They then sold these toxic CDOs as AAA (highest rating/lowest risk), when in essence they really should have been rated C (very risky/junk status) by Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, etc.

I blame this more on the ratings agencies than the product distributors themselves. The watchmen were apparently asleep at the switch.

7. Investigate the Crash of 2008, and bring to justice those who committed financial crimes.

I think the SEC is still underway, but the 2 largest obstacles in their way:
- It's not a crime to be greedy and stupid.
- For every product there must be a buyer and a seller. If the buyer demands it, the seller is only too happy to provide it. If people want mortgages with little to no background checks required, the seller will provide them.

8. Nobody should have to die because they're too poor to afford health insurance, or be in debt for the entire rest of their life if they do seek treatment.

+1

You left student loan forgiveness off of that list, but I don't blame you for doing so. It is one of Occupy's least defensible positions. Why should someone who chose to take out a loan to get a degree in Art History, for example, and now can't find a job have that loan forgiven at taxpayer expense?

Actually this is the one I have the least problem with, personally. Most developed countries around the world have an aggressive higher education subsidy program, because their economy depends on being getting educated and going into knowledge industries. It need not be as extreme as totally forgiving student loans, but I know some countries have instituted temporary interest holidays (a couple years) where interest will not be accrued on outstanding student debt.

That said, the OWS philosophy seems to be made up entirely of thought-terminating cliches, and their actions will barely scratch their intended target. When you close down a port, who do you think hurts more, the wealthy who already have a million in the bank to spare anyway, or the port workers who really need those work hours?

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I think the other countries to which you're referring typically only send a person who has good grades and/or sufficiently high test scores to college; otherwise he or she is off to trade school to learn welding. I also notice that you mention "knowledge industries." I'd be at least slightly less irritated with these kids if they'd taken out government loans to get degrees in something useful (.e.g, mechanical engineering, medicine, etc.) and were now unable to find work. In my opinion if a person hasn't chosen a major that's directly applicable to a job with a good outlook, he or she shouldn't even be eligible for government grants and/or loans.

...really? Big banks and oil can essentially buy a politician. In turn, politicians they help elect don't want to legally pass anything that will hold them accountable for misdoings and thus risk their campaign donations. It's a vicious cycle.


We as American citizens have every right to be livid about it and demand that there IS responsibility, at least in the future, if our tax dollars are being given by the hundreds of billions to allegedly "stop a financial crisis" and ultimately result in the recipients laying people off by the thousands and giving themselves huge bonuses. That is not unreasonable to be furious about. Banks are not simply sitting on money out of the goodness of their hearts - they have an extensive history of purposefully handing out risky loans like candy; they could not care less about anything but excessive profit. And if they weren't receiving our tax dollars in such excess, fine. But if they're important enough to earn our tax money in high volume like that, then they should have to face regulations. If people living in poverty who get the measly stipends unemployment/welfare pay have to jump through so many hoops to prove what they're doing, then those receiving hundreds of billions absolutely should.


Yet "getting profits = hiring" is the cornerstone of the majority of arguments against taxing these companies because allegedly the lack of tax makes them "job creators" for this very reason.


They should definitely share some blame, agreed.



I'm talking about legitimate financial crimes. Illegal insider trading, kickbacks, backdating executive stock options, tax violations, schemes designed to deceive investors, auditors, and analysts about the true financial condition of a corporation, inflated appraisals, etc.

Quote from the FBI in 2008: "In addition to significant financial losses to investors, corporate fraud has the potential to cause immeasurable damage to the U.S. economy and investor confidence." And it did.


Despite slander by the media, the port workers stood with us for the most part, before even knowing that, as I said earlier in the thread, we raised money to pay all of the workers who had to miss work that day.They did not lose any "work hours" ie salary.

This means that what you are telling me is it is caveat emptor. Am I correct? This also tells me that future generation of children cannot trust those who are entrusted with their care am I correct? This tells me that in general society does not follow the values that the people promote? Am I correct? This also tells me that the American Dream is a lie. The American Dream is promoted as though everyone can achieve it. This means what is promoted is not reality. Why should the rest of the world trust what America has to say? People need to start telling imigrants who come here the actual truth then.

What did students expect from those who were entrusted with their care. To be told the complete and honest truth. This is what I expected.

Please define the "American Dream." If it's that everyone who works hard enough can be Bill Gates or Sam Walton then yes, this is obviously false. In spite of what you may have heard elsewhere, life on a planet with limited resources is a zero-sum game. For Bill Gates to win a lot of people have to lose. That's just the way it works, and complaining about it makes about as much sense as complaining about the second law of thermodynamics. However if the American Dream is that each generation can do subjectively "better" than the previous, then I believe this is an achievable goal for most people.

Who do you believe lied to you and how so?

You ask him to define it, and then you put words in his mouth by defining it for him.
You don't know anything about economics if you call it a zero-sum game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream

This means what you are saying is there are those who will never succeed no matter how hard they try. Is this correct? If yes, then those who promote the imigrants the american dream need to tell the full story. The full story is not everyone who comes here or is born here will succeed or be able to make a living for themselves at all? Some people will end up homeless and on the streets. Some will starve on the streets no matter what education they have. What is promoted to the rest of the world is America is an utopia and to suceed all they have to do is work hard. Yeah that may be so but only to a certain extent. That is the fine print to America. What is not told as part of the package is working hard will not guarantee success. This is what was told to students as well. Students were not given the fine print of obtaining a job which is a degree from college is not the bottom. There are other things which was never told to them. One thing is employers do not want newbies or rookies for the most part. They want those with experience. I've always thought there were jobs which only required the degree and no experience. This is what was promoted as the bottom of the bucket.

What does this tell me? First, I accept everything you say as true. Second, this tells me that if I have a child then I need to make sure they have all of the facts before getting into anything. I can't trust that educators, the media, admissions officers, other parents, society in general will have my child's best interests at heart. Everything is Cavet Emptor. This is the honset truth. Anything that they say needs to be put under logical scrutiny to see if it holds up. This means they will all lie for their own ends. I am going to teach my child to expect nothing from anyone no matter what promises they make. We live in a world that is filled with lies, deceptions, and double-speak. You're right I'm changing none of that. I agree 100%. My question is this, how can we be morally upright if success depends upon creating deceptions, believing and promoting deceptions? Like I said before, the only way I see that anyone can be morally upright these days is to leave the system entirely which means someway,somehow form your own communities and become self-sufficient.

If it is truly a zero-sum game like you say then I believe it will eventually become a lose-lose game. Again, we need to leave this sinking ship. Immigrants do not need to come here then. I expected the God's honest truth. I will not get that in America is what you are saying.

How is this true when income inequality among households has been increasing significantly since the late 1970s? Only the ultra-rich are doing financially better than previous generations; everyone else is, overall, much worse off.

According to the Congressional Budget Office: “As a result of uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined..."