Occupy Wall Street?

[TheTrueCentrist]

Didn’t say that. I am glad that I had my English teachers in High School. great people, but how many does society need? To Me history and literature are passions, engineering is a job. You act as though if you choose a technical field you abandon your love for other things. I was just pointing out that you should have realistic expectations about what you can borrow and afford to pay off. I didn’t expect someone else to subsidize my passion, as I don’t expect to subsidize someone elses.

Hello fellow ChE. I think the point is a little more nuanced. There are jobs for English majors and other liberal arts. The problem that I see is that the liberal arts are full of students who chose that path because they perceived it to be easier. The problem is, that while the classes may be easier by some measures, they have to work harder to get a good job in their field. To do this they have to take advantage of career counseling and job fairs early on, and actively seek to make themselves attractive to potential employers. Engineers have tougher coursework, but face a somewhat more forgiving job market. Basically, no one is successful just because they went to college, but anyone who goes to college can be successful (in any major) if they work hard.

 

[Nate13]

Didn’t say that. I am glad that I had my English teachers in High School. great people, but how many does society need? To Me history and literature are passions, engineering is a job. You act as though if you choose a technical field you abandon your love for other things. I was just pointing out that you should have realistic expectations about what you can borrow and afford to pay off. I didn’t expect someone else to subsidize my passion, as I don’t expect to subsidize someone elses.

Exactly, the point is that if your going to be an English teacher don’t go to a school where your going to rack up $50,000 in school debt. If your not going to be making much more than $30,000 to $40,000 anywhere in the near future you probably don’t want more than $20,000 in debt especially if you intend to start a family coming right out of school. How soon a person starts a family is also an important factor that plays into the debt things as well.

 

[JimG]

The problem I have with the focus on deficits and on austerity measures is that they punish the people who didn’t cause the problem. I find it interesting that basically the same people who called for the govt to spend 200 billion dollars on TARP (banking sector) are now the people saying that debt is too high and debt ratings will have to be downgraded (rating agencies). Let’s not mince words… these are all the same folks. They first asked us to go into a bunch of debt so we could give it to them and keep their bad investments afloat. Now, we’re being asked to give up government services for the poor in a really bad economy because we can’t afford to borrow money anymore. That’s crazy. It was ok to borrow in order to hand it over to the rich who caused this economic crisis no strings attached, but we don’t have enough to make sure we provide essential services to the poor. Absurd. It’s the same kind of thing that the leaders of my corporation do when they say they can only offer the cashiers 4c an hour raises but give themselves 20% raises

And since we mentioned Greece, I think it’s telling about the halls of power that the new Prime Minister is an unelected banking expert educated in the USA.

Yes, no doubt the TARP funds were borrowed money. But TARP spending alone is not the problem, nor even most of the problem. The national debt has ballooned from 5.6 trillion dollars in the year 2,000 to nearly 15 trillion dollars today. The government borrows 40% of all that it spends. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if the federal government were suddenly restricted to spending only as much as it takes in? The cuts would be huge, a lot larger than the measly 1.2 trillion that the supercommittee is supposed trying to accomplish.

We didn’t get in this position just because of TARP.

Interest rates are artificially low now. Once they start to rise, the interest on the debt adds to the debt and makes it even harder to reduce. That’s why I see austerity measures as inevitable no matter who we wish to blame.

And actually, everybody who gets a check from the government is part of the problem no matter how worthy or unworthy we may be. I’m on social security myself. AARP keeps asking for money to lobby congress not to reduce social security (“we earned it!”, they say), but the fact is, social security is not sustainable without changes. And the government cannot continue to borrow 40% of all that it spends without collapsing the monetary system.

The rich make a great target. Let’s just tax them greatly and confiscate their wealth. It still won’t put a crimp in the debt bubble. When we reach the point that no one will buy our debt, or will only buy it at much higher prices–interest rates–the system begins to collapse.

 

[Nate13]

And actually, everybody who gets a check from the government is part of the problem no matter how worthy or unworthy we may be. I’m on social security myself. AARP keeps asking for money to lobby congress not to reduce social security (“we earned it!”, they say), but the fact is, social security is not sustainable without changes. And the government cannot continue to borrow 40% of all that it spends without collapsing the monetary system.

All they have claim to is the money that we have currently taken in plus whatever Congress has decided to steal from social security accounts over the years. The problem is this amount of money doesn’t pay for the benefits they were promised. Congress is to blame for this, but at the end of the day they are not being shorted anything if social security is reduced to the point where it is sustainable. They would be getting what they actually paid for. I’m all for working out some kind of compromise on this issue and not throwing all the pain on seniors but we need to start by acknowledging the fact that the amount seniors have paid was not enough to cover the benefits they were promised and in all reality they really only have claim to the amount of benefits that can be covered by what they actually paid.

All of these programs show negligence on the part of the government to sufficiently plan for the long term future with these programs. This shouldn’t be a surprise considering Congress works in fits of 4 years. If they had been smart the taxes taken out would have been tied to the projections of the rising cost of living, and with acknowledgement that birth rates were not constant and the amount of people paying into the system changed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yes, no doubt the TARP funds were borrowed money. But TARP spending alone is not the problem, nor even most of the problem. The national debt has ballooned from 5.6 trillion dollars in the year 2,000 to nearly 15 trillion dollars today. The government borrows 40% of all that it spends. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if the federal government were suddenly restricted to spending only as much as it takes in? The cuts would be huge, a lot larger than the measly 1.2 trillion that the supercommittee is supposed trying to accomplish.

We didn’t get in this position just because of TARP.

Interest rates are artificially low now. Once they start to rise, the interest on the debt adds to the debt and makes it even harder to reduce. That’s why I see austerity measures as inevitable no matter who we wish to blame.

And actually, everybody who gets a check from the government is part of the problem no matter how worthy or unworthy we may be. I’m on social security myself. AARP keeps asking for money to lobby congress not to reduce social security (“we earned it!”, they say), but the fact is, social security is not sustainable without changes. And the government cannot continue to borrow 40% of all that it spends without collapsing the monetary system.

The rich make a great target. Let’s just tax them greatly and confiscate their wealth. It still won’t put a crimp in the debt bubble. When we reach the point that no one will buy our debt, or will only buy it at much higher prices–interest rates–the system begins to collapse.

Actually, the government CAN survive on current tax collections nicely … $5 Billion per day. Under President Bush II, he had got the budget almost balanced … and then there was that phoney-baloney collapse just before the 2008 election. The Cloward-Piven Fannie/Freddie, Barney Frank/Jamie Gorelick strategy to break the bank.

I have posted extensively on this here on CAF extensively.

Here is a repost; there are others:

THERE IS PLENTY OF MONEY.

The Feds collect $5 Billion per day.

They only need $1 Billion per day to pay the interest on the debt.

They only need $1 Billion per day for Social Security.

They only need $1 Billion per day for Medicare.

That leaves $2 Billion per day for the salaries and other bills of the Federal Government.

WE DO NEED TO SPEND 5% OF GDP FOR MILITARY. Because whenever military spending goes below that, we get whacked. Happened in WW2, Korea and 9/11 and we are below 5% now.

All tax collections over $5 Billion per day go to paying down the debt.

Social Security gets converted to the Galveston County Plan on a slidind scale so that no one gets birned.

Medicare gets converted to the Indiana Plan.

 

[JimG]

Actually, the government CAN survive on current tax collections nicely … $5 Billion per day. Under President Bush II, he had got the budget almost balanced … and then there was that phoney-baloney collapse just before the 2008 election. The Cloward-Piven Fannie/Freddie, Barney Frank/Jamie Gorelick strategy to break the bank.

I have posted extensively on this here on CAF extensively.

If that’s the case, then the Congress should have an easy time of it passing a budget and the supercommittee should find its work pretty easy. But somehow, I don’t think that anybody really wants to cut spending to match income.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If that’s the case, then the Congress should have an easy time of it passing a budget and the supercommittee should find its work pretty easy. But somehow, I don’t think that anybody really wants to cut spending to match income.

Take a look at the identified big spenders on the committee.

Anyway I posted a LOT about this from March to August 2011 … search: military gdp

Here is one of my posts from March 3, 2011:

Cuts are not needed.

What IS needed is radical restructuring.

Galveston Plan instead of the ponzi Social Security

ncpa.org/pub/ba514 convert on a sliding scale so everyone is covered and no one gets burned.

Here are some PRA ideas:

heritage.org/Research/Rep…ocial-Security

Indiana Plan instead of medicare.

health–savings–accounts.com/plans-in.htm

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000…470293066.html

AUDIT medicaid because of the KNOWN billions in fraud … outright fraud.

Defense: When the military had ten million men, we built the Pentagon that was at the height of WW2. Now we have only ONE million men (and women) in the military … so close down 90% of the Pentagon building and retire 90% of the Generals and their staffs. Easy place to start. Everything else will quickly fall into place.

Reduce military spending to 5% of GDP.

Reduce total federal spending to 10% of GDP.

The Federal government owns a HUGE percent of Alaska, Nevada and other states land.
GIVE IT BACK TO THE STATES.

Give education, transportation, energy and housing over to the states. That can be done instantly with no dislocations.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Another repeat:

The Soviet Union’s military budget was not merely “over 5%” … it was more like over 40% … and for a sustained period.

There is no need for the U.S. to spend more than about 8% of GDP on defense.

Probably 5.1% will do the job. But NOT BELOW 5%.

[If you worked for the government, you could probably find the graph of Soviet military spending as a percent of their GDP.]

I already have provided the graph of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP and it worked out just fine as long as we kept spending at 5% of GDP.

In 1940, U.S. military spending was 1.7% of GDP and only 17.5% of Federal Government Outlays.

Now, U.S. military spending is only 4.4% or less of GDP and only 17% or 18% [GPO says the data are only “estimated” of total Federal outlays … in other words, we are now in avery vulnerable … traditional open-to attack … range of military spending. In a range in which we have been hit hard before.

Go here and click on it and scroll down to the chart:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag.../0411chart.pdf

As long as we stay at or slightly above 5%, we are fine.

In 1940, defense was 1.7% of GDP and we got clobbered at Pearl Harbor.

The data are here: [repeat post for the 9th time]

You really need to look at the trends in Government spending … and you can tell that a lot of places that post numbers don’t really want you to know what the trend line really is on military spending of the United States.

Go to this Web page. It is by the Government Printing Office:

gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Visit Table 3.1

Just scroll down.

It shows from 1940 to 2014 spending … And at the BOTTOM, is National Defense spending as a percent of total Federal Government outlays. [AND ALSO DEFENSE AS A PERCENT OF GDP.]

Unfortunately, until someone here can find a graph that shows all that "Total Federal Government outlays] data in one graph, you [or someone here who has a better computer than I have] would need to manually write the data down and graph it and post the graph here.

But the current military spending as a percent of total U.S. outlays is about as low as it has ever been … except for Bill Clinton’s spending just before 9/11.

That’s the actual Federal government data.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte RCMS Aug 16, 2011:

Our enemies were not looking at our military spending as a percent of GDP.

Prior to the Korean War, they just happened to notice that the U.S. had demobilized almost all of its military.

The Navy only had one small aircraft carrier available and if they had waited until 1951, it also would have been tied up or mothballed or scrapped.

I personally lived through Bill Clinton’s reduction of military spending. It was not the “budget” cuts, it was the reduction in the numbers of our active duty troops, the reduction in fighter planes, and the reduction of many other weapons. He also got rid of the SR-71 Blackbird which was no longer top secret and which was a visible presence. He also got rid of the nuclear weapons testing detection fleet of airplanes which we used to use to check up on places like Pakistan and others.

Shut down the anti-ballistic missile efforts.

He cut the military by somewhere around 50% in its active units. But military bureaucracy was worse than ever. Morale was at an all time low … and this was all public information.

Our enemies could not miss out noticing all this.

Then when our enemies challenged him … by blowing up barracks, and our two embassies and the destroyer Cole, Clinton used all sorts of obfuscations to avoid taking any kind of action. He didn’t even close the barn door after the cows escaped.

He was offered bin Laden on a silver platter and turned down the gift.

So it was a combination of things that emboldened our enemies.

Bush II was stuck with those depleted military forces.

After 9/11, he built it back up and now it’s coming back down again.

Clinton’s military budget was somewhere around 2.6% of GDP or 3% of GDP … different numbers conflict. And less than 17% of Total Federal Outlays.

So, no, I’m not just throwing numbers around.

Those numbers are an accurate index of our national military security.

---

With respect to tax rates, if you want to increase tax collections and grow the economy, then REDUCE the tax rates. Every other country is reducing them or has rates that are already lower than ours. Many have capital gains rates at or near zero.

And our corporate tax rates are about the highest in the industrialized world. We are chasing employers OUT of the United States.

With respect to the $5 Billion per day figure, Bush II had the deficit down to about $1 Billion per day or less. Obama is spending about $10 Billion per day or more.

So, with a stronger economy, the $5 Billion per day is doable. Cut spending back to where it was when $5 Billion per day WAS the average daily spending.

You can pare back a lot of the other Federal expenses. And grow the economy.

 

[Captain_America]

I believe in cutting military spending. There’s plenty of fat at the Pentagon to cut.

I believe in structuring the tax code so that business invests in United States jobs, specifically manufacturing.

I believe in lessening subsidies to business.

I believe our nation needs to be among the best educated on the planet, instead of continually sinking. I also believe the physical infrastructure needs improvement, and I think we all agree that we need to find a solution to the 1,000-pound problem coming down the road at us at 3,000 mph: living without inexpensive oil.

Despite my abhorrence of the Current Occupant, the Current Republican Congress, to my taste, is also too ideological. We need to end the ideological battling and set aside all these issues for later (i.e., there was absolutely no reason to promote abortion in the third world, as BO has initiated).

 

[Leegal]

The time may be nigh. I heard on the radio that some action to remove the OWS people from the park may take place on Thursday.

Not soon enough. Whatever the objective, whatever the purpose – it’s long been lost in all the other controversies and questions surrounding this protest. A few may be leaving soon having been invited to Egypt. Why am I not surprised? The others? Forcible removal? Maybe.

 

[Leegal]

Done deal. They announced they would remove them on Thursday, yet came in during the night ahead of time. News reports are that the place is “spotless.” Sanitation has destroyed all the tents and books that were strewn about, but other property was preserved.

A court will now determine how to best legally police the park so as to not recreate another live-in demonstration at the site. For the people, they seem to be congregating at other locations – City Hall and Foley Square, the last being federal property.

 

[Captain_America]

The quietly troubling thing behind this stuff is this: in a democracy, people need public places to assemble and actually COMMIT free speech!

What happens when (a) our well-trafficked areas are all privately owned, and (b) statutes and ordinances are passed which SO limit public access that free speech is effectively stifled.

No one wants that. I’m not a fan of the NRA, but I firmly support their right to demonstrate at the local courthouse or park, etc., if it’s something the group wants to do. Freedoms of conscience are very important, particularly with troublesome points of view.

Trust me, the Catholic Church in America will be facing this matter soon! See what’s happening in Canada!

 

[Jonatello]

The quietly troubling thing behind this stuff is this: in a democracy, people need public places to assemble and actually COMMIT free speech!

What happens when (a) our well-trafficked areas are all privately owned, and (b) statutes and ordinances are passed which SO limit public access that free speech is effectively stifled.

this is a HUGE issue

 

[Nate13]

The quietly troubling thing behind this stuff is this: in a democracy, people need public places to assemble and actually COMMIT free speech!

What happens when (a) our well-trafficked areas are all privately owned, and (b) statutes and ordinances are passed which SO limit public access that free speech is effectively stifled.

No one wants that. I’m not a fan of the NRA, but I firmly support their right to demonstrate at the local courthouse or park, etc., if it’s something the group wants to do. Freedoms of conscience are very important, particularly with troublesome points of view.

Trust me, the Catholic Church in America will be facing this matter soon! See what’s happening in Canada!

I’m sorry but I think most rational people can tell the difference between allowing people to use the park the protest, and using the spot as a free lodging at others expense. The problem arises when their right to free speech impinges on other people’s right to free speech. Their presence at that park and at Wall St. was stomping all over other people’s rights who’s tax dollars were the ones actually being spent. I’m sure the people who came from out of state don’t mind if New York City has to drop a few million because of their protest, but I’m sure actual New Yorker’s care.

I firmly support their right to protest, but they crossed a line when they decided to “occupy” (kind of a violent word by the way) a park for their own purposes for weeks on end. In my mind how they treated that park is symbolic of how they would treat America were it in their hands and reaks of disrespect.

 

[Captain_America]

. . . and were not these people already lodging elsewhere before the movement began?

I would think so. Some small percentage, I agree, may be freaks and gloms. Most are not. Most, too, reflect the basic feelings held by many of us in the middle class who, due to practical reasons, cannot join them on the street. Our views, for a more fair and rational economic system, deserve respect, even if we join you in scoffing at the scruffies there.

Consider:
illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-9297-the-disuniting-of-america.html

 

[Leegal]

The quietly troubling thing behind this stuff is this: in a democracy, people need public places to assemble and actually COMMIT free speech!

What happens when (a) our well-trafficked areas are all privately owned, and (b) statutes and ordinances are passed which SO limit public access that free speech is effectively stifled.

No one wants that. I’m not a fan of the NRA, but I firmly support their right to demonstrate at the local courthouse or park, etc., if it’s something the group wants to do. Freedoms of conscience are very important, particularly with troublesome points of view.

Trust me, the Catholic Church in America will be facing this matter soon! See what’s happening in Canada!

They have their free speech. There’s no infringement. There’s no Constitutional guarantee to live in the park in a tent – to “occupy.” They can protest, go home, and return. You have no right to live in the park.

Besides, the true and honest message of the protest has long been lost. Whatever the purpose, the mesage was being buried in the mess of the live-in. Do you think everyone was there for the protest and came with honest intentions?

Then let us hear from the protestors as to what their message is.

But living in a private park is not going to get the message of discontent out any better. Raping women, slashing police, defecating in public, physically attacking an ex-military who was there to protest that there are no jobs for returning military is not a legitimate message.

Too many people – too many agendas, not all of them honest. It had gone on too long already. Besides, safrety was already an issue not to mention the fire hazard of the live-in. Would it be better to leave it uncontrolled and a fire results in death? They can still get their message out; I’m certain the media is still interested. Remember, restrictions can be placed upon speech according to “time”, “place” and “manner.” And this manner was becoming a public safety hazard.

 

[Leegal]

. . . and were not these people already lodging elsewhere before the movement began?

I would think so. Some small percentage, I agree, may be freaks and gloms. Most are not. Most, too, reflect the basic feelings held by many of us in the middle class who, due to practical reasons, cannot join them on the street. Our views, for a more fair and rational economic system, deserve respect, even if we join you in scoffing at the scruffies there.

Consider:
illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-9297-the-disuniting-of-america.html

Actually, since I live here, the freaks and gloms seemed to have quickly outnumbered the honest protestors with a legitimate gripe against the government, the banks, big business, etc. They were even attacking ex-military who cannot find jobs (I think that’s a legitimate gripe on the part of an ex service person), so where’s the message? I won’t list the other abuses again; I did so much earlier.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I don’t think the colleges are alone in the blame for this problem. I grew up in an upper-middle class high school and we were always taught “college at all cost”. If we had to get loans, it was no big deal because we would easily pay them off once we started working. This might have been good advice at one point when college was three grand a year, but now even a less expensive university is ten thousand dollars a year and students are encouraged to take out loans to pay their dormitory rent so they don’t have to work!

Most college students are straight from high school and are basically children. My question is, where the heck are their lousy parents? What sort of psychopath advises their children to take out thousands of dollars of loans to pay for a degree in addition to putting their room and board in loans? I suppose if your kid is in law or medical school that would be one thing, but how in the world are they supposed to pay back 40 thousand dollars on a teacher’s salary?

What parents and guidence counselors should tell kids is never take out any loans for anything even if you have to work three jobs! Who in the world decided that late-teenagers are entitled to go to college without working a job, at the expense of their futures? Why would anyone advise kids to do something that would ensnare them in dept for the first decade of their adult life?

Sorry for my little rant, but I think it is horrible the trouble people start their lives in, because of this irresponsible guidence from what should be responsible adults. I think there should be a legal limit to how much a student can take out and I don’t think student loans should be allowed to be used for anything except tuition, paid straight to the university. Young people should earn their education, either with scholarships, work study, or working as many jobs as it takes. The days of spending college in a frat house, playing sports, or finding oneself and charging it to one’s future need to come to an end.

Allegra:

We also have schools such as Harvard which have so much in “Endowments” they could easily pay the tuition of all of the students attending one of those schools with the huge Endowments without ever touching the Principal of any of those Endowments. Yet, because of the ways our Laws have been written, these “Tax-Exempt Charitable” Institutions are allowed to act in ways no other Tax-Exempt Charitable Institutions are allowed to act - They are allowed to force the students (even those who are poor) to pay their entire tuition, usually with the State or Federal Government picking up what the students obviously can’t afford (and, yes, the school can).

Why not require that schools such as Harvard behave in the same ways all other Tax-Exempt Charitable Institutions are required to act? Why not require that schools such as Harvard use the Interest their Endowments accrue to pay for the Tuition of all of their students each and every year who demonstrably can’t afford to pay that school’s tuition before that school is allowed to begin charging tuition to any of the demonstrably “wealthier” students? At the same time, why not require that schools such as Harvard be required to admit all students from the Inner City, and whose families’ incomes are less than 1.5 times the Federal Poverty Line, with G.P.A.'s above 4.00 and S.A.T.'s above 2000 or C.E.A.'s above 112 who apply to that school regardless of their ability to pay?

This would serve 4 functions -

1. Would provide a College Eduction for students from the Inner City who are willing to work for it without the additional burden of having to raise the extra funds of paying the extra tuition;
2. Would force rich, powerful "Educational Institutions’ such as Harvard to act as all other Tax-Exempt Charitable Foundations do;
3. This would allow Inner City & other Poorer Students to begin their careers as Teachers, Engineers, Nurses, Doctors, Etc. without an unreasonable or unpayable student loan burden; and
4. This would allow us to do this with a minimum of State and Federal Tax Dollars - FYI, Federal Programs are less than 38% efficient, which means that fewer than $380 of every $1000 sent to State & Federal Bureaucracies end up helping those who actually need it (that includes Student Aid Programs)…

I hope this data, and this idea, causes some reflection…
Yours in Christ, Michael

 

[Arizona_Mike]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/11/110511_2996.jpg

She who does not remember history is condemned to repeat history:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/11/110511_3221.jpg