Occupy Wall Street

Nina,

What is interesting to me is that the govt bailout of private business is one issue I think most people agree on in OWS and the Tea Party. Everyone thinks it is wrong. Where the disagreement is is on the solution. One group thinks more of the same government can solve the problem and the other group thinks getting the government out and allowing banks to fail will solve the problem.

Based on my posts it is clear that I am on the side that government creates problems and does not solve them. There are numerous examples of that. One of them is the student loan disaster that is coming. The powers that be decided everyone should go to college and startred throwing money at it in the form of loans and grants. The colleges said thanks and have raised their prices much faster than inflation for decades now. The result is that college is no longer affordable for the average person without the grants or loans. It is also so expensive that you cannot work your way through college. I would argue that government interference has, while trying to be beneficial, been harmful. If the government got out of the way colleges would have to find a way to provide their services at an affordable rate.

So while the OWS protesters may have some legitimate gripes I wish they would spend some time focusing on solutions that would work. Expecting the same govt that screwed this up to fix it is not realistic. Politicians of both parties for the most part have proven themselves incompetant.

Laz, I won't go so far as to say let the banks fail. I say let them sink or swim on their own. I am sure that when push came to shove many of them won't have failed even if they had to sell off land, banks, or properties that they held. Same thing goes for homes in foreclosure. Yes, it sounds cruel to take someone's home but it is more cruel to leave them swinging in the breeze for six to eighteen months and then taking their home anyway.

The result is that college is no longer affordable for the average person without the grants or loans. It is also so expensive that you cannot work your way through college. I would argue that government interference has, while trying to be beneficial, been harmful. If the government got out of the way colleges would have to find a way to provide their services at an affordable rate.

So while the OWS protesters may have some legitimate gripes I wish they would spend some time focusing on solutions that would work. Expecting the same govt that screwed this up to fix it is not realistic. Politicians of both parties for the most part have proven themselves incompetant. Originally Posted by Laz

I completely agree with you. You offer some interesting insight. I assume what you say can be related to the agenda of the "social mobility" which has stagnated in the USA.
As to your point of bringing solutions : There has been an interesting book written about it and i have yet to read through it but it seems to have valuable insight on social movements and what the solutions "could" be:

here we go:

http://occupysesamest.blogspot.com/
or
http://occupysesamest.blogspot.com/2...ord-class.html

lol - just kidding, here the true link :.))):

http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book224847

The book points out something important for here as well, which is - for example -that many protest groups have no idea of exactly what they want to change.
This is not surprising if you think of the fact that institutions are monolithic and also very complex. So one or a few persons cannot possible come up with any solutions, but - rightfully - make points. The perception that people are apathetic and clueless is actually more of a reflection of the fact that it is difficult to identify practical courses of action to get changes for some benefit of humanity.
But protests bring issues into the public arena and allow for debate, and are empowerment activities, and a whole lot of people get educated also the non-protesters as well as the protestors. I think rethinking the inequalities that are present in the world are an integral and important part of this.

And if you agree on points and such, then why don`t you help these protesters find valuable resources for solutions :-) ?

Laz, I won't go so far as to say let the banks fail. I say let them sink or swim on their own. I am sure that when push came to shove many of them won't have failed even if they had to sell off land, banks, or properties that they held. Same thing goes for homes in foreclosure. Yes, it sounds cruel to take someone's home but it is more cruel to leave them swinging in the breeze for six to eighteen months and then taking their home anyway. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I agree on both points. Debt makes you a slave to the lender. Trying to keep people in houses they cannot afford is not helping them.

I agree on both points. Debt makes you a slave to the lender. Trying to keep people in houses they cannot afford is not helping them. Originally Posted by Laz

Oh sure, because getting people out of houses they can^t afford anymore due to a system flaw will make their social uprising very much possible (that was meant to be cynical). If you take away the very ground and very base of a person how can they even strive for success? Or support capitalism? From under the bridge living off welfare? I think its "cheaper" for the economy to let them live in these houses and work out other finance plans, then to just "drop" them like a hot stone. Social and economic studies have shown that societies that care for their poor are better supporting prosperity than the others. If you want a successful capitalistic economy to work then - that is something you should not do.

Did you ever hear about the "Maslow`s Pyramid"? It puts people`s need in a hierarchy. So - if you take away basic needs you will not be able to capitalize on goods. Being so reckless is the destruction of capitalism. It needs to assure that social structures are worthy to be able to function. That is where the Tea Party Members and me differ :-). Putting people on the street will exactly solve nothing. It creates issues where there haven`t been some before, at least.

Oh sure, because getting people out of houses they can^t afford anymore due to a system flaw will make their social uprising very much possible (that was meant to be cynical). If you take people even the base how can they even strive to work? From under the bridge?

Did you ever hear about the "Maslow`s Pyramid"? It puts people`s need in a hierarchy. So - if you take away basic needs you will not be able to capitalize on goods. Being so reckless is the destruction of capitalism. It needs to assure that social structures are worthy to be able to function. That is where the Tea Party Members and me differ :-). Putting people on the street will exactly solve nothing. It creates issues where there haven`t been some before, at least. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Never did I say put them on the street. I am simply saying that a lower cost place to live would be better than a high cost place. Being in an apartment that they can afford and allows them to save money for their future is far better than spending every dime they have to stay in a house that they should not be in. The banks lose in my answer not the homeowners. The former homeowner now has a chance to restart and save for their future and the bank has to deal with a house they don't want. I have no sympathy for any institution that loaned a person more money than they should have borrowed. They did not help their customer and took a risk that will end up costing them money.

Never did I say put them on the street. I am simply saying that a lower cost place to live would be better than a high cost place. Being in an apartment that they can afford and allows them to save money for their future is far better than spending every dime they have to stay in a house that they should not be in. The banks lose in my answer not the homeowners. The former homeowner now has a chance to restart and save for their future and the bank has to deal with a house they don't want. I have no sympathy for any institution that loaned a person more money than they should have borrowed. They did not help their customer and took a risk that will end up costing them money. Originally Posted by Laz

True, i concur.... Word!

Never did I say put them on the street. I am simply saying that a lower cost place to live would be better than a high cost place. Being in an apartment that they can afford and allows them to save money for their future is far better than spending every dime they have to stay in a house that they should not be in. The banks lose in my answer not the homeowners. The former homeowner now has a chance to restart and save for their future and the bank has to deal with a house they don't want. I have no sympathy for any institution that loaned a person more money than they should have borrowed. They did not help their customer and took a risk that will end up costing them money. Originally Posted by Laz

the banks may not have had a choice on this. there is a law (I think its called the community reinvestment act or something like that I forget what's its called) which regulated how banks lend to certain groups of people. It was passed under the Jimmy Carter administration and amended later under Bill Clinton. the idea was to make it easier for people to borrow money to buy a house and harder for banks to redline them. From what I understand, if banks didn't lend enough loans to certain groups of people, they wouldn''t be allowed to expand their business or conduct a merger with another business.

Nina,

What is interesting to me is that the govt bailout of private business is one issue I think most people agree on in OWS and the Tea Party. Everyone thinks it is wrong.Agreed Where the disagreement is is on the solution. One group thinks more of the same government can solve the problem and the other group thinks getting the government out and allowing banks to fail will solve the problem.

This is total BS. Do you think the Tea Party wants government out of SS or the Medicare business or even Defense? If so you have not followed their actions. Remember the Tea lady who said she wanted the government out of her Mdeicare!

So while you so called Tea Cats talk a good game , your actions do not add up to the talk.

Based on my posts it is clear that I am on the side that government creates problems and does not solve them. There are numerous examples of that. One of them is the student loan disaster that is coming. The powers that be decided everyone should go to college and startred throwing money at it in the form of loans and grants. The colleges said thanks and have raised their prices much faster than inflation for decades now. The result is that college is no longer affordable for the average person without the grants or loans. It is also so expensive that you cannot work your way through college. I would argue that government interference has, while trying to be beneficial, been harmful. If the government got out of the way colleges would have to find a way to provide their services at an affordable rate.

Again the facts do not line up. The GI Bill was a boom to everyone. I do not see the folks who took advantage of that program crying about how bad it was. What you have here is a generation of people that have benifited from government getting older. Those same people are now turning their back on the younger generation by crying about leaving SS and Medicare alone but have no problem cutting education. This is a generational fight. The young vs old , meanwhile the bankers are making off with all the loot.

So while the OWS protesters may have some legitimate gripes I wish they would spend some time focusing on solutions that would work. Expecting the same govt that screwed this up to fix it is not realistic. Politicians of both parties for the most part have proven themselves incompetant. Originally Posted by Laz

Who the fiddeling fuc do you think elects politicians?

Big money dominates this shit and that is the actual problem.

Having companies being treated as people and being able to donate all they want has turned this country into a big ole free for all.

Little government will mean that Big government runs the country....kinda like now. THe government does not run things , Big Business does. To tell you the truth , there does not appear to be much of a difference.

I think we have been presented with a Hobson Choice.

Your little government, Big business nonsense or the other one, Big Government little business model.

All the government is, is arefree between workers and business....for the last thirty years big business has been kicking the shit out of the workers and the results are in.

Who the fiddeling fuc do you think elects politicians?

Big money dominates this shit and that is the actual problem.

Having companies being treated as people and being able to donate all they want has turned this country into a big ole free for all.

Little government will mean that Big government runs the country....kinda like now. THe government does not run things , Big Business does. To tell you the truth , there does not appear to be much of a difference.

I think we have been presented with a Hobson Choice.

Your little government, Big business nonsense or the other one, Big Government little business model.

All the government is, is arefree between workers and business....for the last thirty years big business has been kicking the shit out of the workers and the results are in. Originally Posted by WTF

First off SS Medicare etc are not private businesses. I stated that the Tea Party is against bailing out PRIVATE businesses. I would think you would agree with that since you hate big business.

As for who elects the politicians it is the citizens of the US. I will grant they have made bad choices for years because they vote on what they percieve is in their best interest when the politicians have then turned around and fucked them. They vote based on lies and sound bites but do not take the time necessary to learn the reality. The media has failed to critically analyze policy and challenge the news releases of politicians. In general it is a failed process where politicians steal money from citizens to use in programs designed to buy them votes.

You have a problem with big business that I don't have as long as they do not go to the government to be bailed out. I do think that a business is a legal entity but not a person. Any legal entity, which also includes unions, should NOT be allowed to contribute to or support a politician. The people working for that business should be able to donate to and support politicians within the legal limits.

Big business has provide millions of families an income to support themselves. They do not screw their employees for the most part and have provided products and services that we want. They are not the problem as long as they have to compete in the free market and are not allowed undue influence.

They are not the problem as long as they have to compete in the free market and are not allowed undue influence. Originally Posted by Laz

Well that is a big if there....


Once you have to big to fail , you have ''to big'' running government. We should never have let those companies get that big. All these mergers over the last thirty years have created less competetion , not more.

I stated that the Tea Party is against bailing out PRIVATE businesses. I would think you would agree with that since you hate big business. Originally Posted by Laz

I agreed with that. Both OWS and the Tea Party agree on that.

Yet they (the tea folks) do not want the government regulating those business that then become to big to fail. Makes no sense to me. If you let a business become so large with basically no competetion then you get exactly wtf we got.... a country run by big business!

This is not rocket science.

I agreed with that. Both OWS and the Tea Party agree on that.

Yet they (the tea folks) do not want the government regulating those business that then become to big to fail. Makes no sense to me. If you let a business become so large with basically no competetion then you get exactly wtf we got.... a country run by big business!

This is not rocket science. Originally Posted by WTF

Those banks were not to big to fail. Most of them probably would not have failed. The problem is the politicians have trained them to look to the government for support and created the expectation that the government will step in if necessary. If everyone knew the government would not bail them out investors would be much more careful about who they trusted.

[quote=Laz;1793708] The problem is the politicians have trained them to look to the government for support and created the expectation that the government will step in if necessary.quote]

No the problem is the politicians are bought and paid for by Wall Street.

[quote=WTF;1794015]

The problem is the politicians have trained them to look to the government for support and created the expectation that the government will step in if necessary.quote]

No the problem is the politicians are bought and paid for by Wall Street. Originally Posted by Laz

No argument but why would you think that the same bought and paid for politicians can fix the problem. Why not join those of us that want government out of business. Set a framework of laws that ensure fair competition and get out of the way.