Occupy movement - I'm in the 100%

[flyingtnh]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

To specifically address this I would say that I reframe these. This was by far not the government taking over these businesses so much as it was these businesses using the government to scrape off their bad debt and to socialize their losses to you and me while retaining their profits for themselves. The government didn't take over these businesses, it got taken by them.

+2​

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

My opinion, the house and senate are outdated. The house was the best way at the time to get the opinion of the whole of the population. The senate was the best way at the time to get the opinion of all the states.

This day an age you can get the opinion strait from the people cheaper than paying all these representatives.

 

[Avalon1984]

Not sure if it is really worth bringing it up but since I keep hearing the same thing over and over when it comes to this topic and student loans and no jobs out of college and how countries like Germany are so much better…so here it goes.

I went to school in Germany, 13 years regular and pre college school and then 2 years of college. Form 4th grade on you are (Or were, they may have changed it by now) sectioned off in different type of schools according to how smart you were. I partially agree with that. Anyways, come college, yes we had very low college fees. The problem was that there were 25 people enrolling per spot open, so just to get in was a pain, and I was a close to 4.0 student with plenty of experience. Once I was in there, massive selection began in the first year. Every single class saw failure rates of 75-80% on tests. There was only one test of 1hr at the end of each semester. You either made it or failed. No make up test, no extra credit or any of that stuff I saw in college over here. Did the strict learning schedule help people? I believe so, but what people tend to forget is that after 4 years 70% of all people who were originally enrolled had failed and could not continue education. You can only retake the same test 2 times, after that you are done. So 70% of young people just wasted a good few years in college without getting any degree in the end or any credit for their hard work. (There was no such thing as a 2 year degree when I was there).

So yes, education is cheap but it comes at a price. Not many people make it through college and those who do usually get good jobs. So the question is whether you want to go with a system that gives everybody regardless of age a great chance to attend college but that costs money with unknown chances of employment, or go with it like the Germans do? I’d choose neither because the German system is set up for failure (note, I did not fail, I came over here and had to discontinue my education there) and the American college I went to was way too easy and lenient. The degree I earned there was basically worthless, except that it cost me 8k.

Just thought I’d throw this out since people always demand education to be cheaper, yet want more people to have the chance to go to college.

 

[FourPawz]

Quote:
So we eliminate our republic in favor of a pure democracy? Remember the old saying, "a democracy is 2 lions and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner". Yikes!

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Quote:
So we eliminate our republic in favor of a pure democracy? Remember the old saying, "a democracy is 2 lions and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner". Yikes!

Agreed. However, what people keep forgetting is that the balance that makes this a republic is not the House and the Senate but the representatives and the judicial system.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Just for laughs:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Watch the Judge Napolitano interview.

That's me and Royd arguing!! LOL!!!

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
So we eliminate our republic in favor of a pure democracy? Remember the old saying, "a democracy is 2 lions and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner". Yikes!

Actually a well set up democracy can work well but that is not what I said.


I said to replace the democratic part of the government with a true democracy.. The house was meant to be a vote by population. Why not make it that now. The senate was supposed to be a vote of the states. Why not make it that now. The presidential veto power was put there to protect from the danger that may come up with democracy as was the supreme court.

 

[FourPawz]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

FourPawz

We have a recent history of governmental takeover of business. The interference in the banking system, General Motors and in the Chrysler corporation are the most glaring examples. General Electric, a multi-billion dollar corporation, pays zero taxes while supplying huge sums of money to political interests.

To specifically address this I would say that I reframe these. This was by far not the government taking over these businesses so much as it was these businesses using the government to scrape off their bad debt and to socialize their losses to you and me while retaining their profits for themselves. The government didn't take over these businesses, it got taken by them.

Believe me when I say I am NOT anti-business! I am anti multinational corporations who are so far reaching they are not beholden to any government whatsoever in any country. They have no loyalty to anything other than quarterly profit reports. They are not even loyal to shareholders which are now usually individuals pensions and retirement plans as oppose to people who ca afford to lose what is invested.​

I agree with many of your suggestions with this caveat. For years, the federal reserve, beginning with Alan Greenspan, has artificially kept interest rates low to prop up the economy. In the case of the banking crisis, had government not insisted banks scrap the rule of only lending to those with the ability to put 20% down on the purchase of a home, with a high credit rating, your suggestion that government has been "used by business" might be plausible. However, do we not all agree that, beginning with the Bush administration, there has been a radical change in how real estate has been approached? I have vivid memories of George W Bush telling the country that "everyone deserves to own their own home". No, Mr Bush, they do not. Recent events have proven how wrong you were.

Congress passed bills that forced financial institutions to make "no money down" loans to people who could not pay them back, specifically a bill brought to congress by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The first government bailout forced Bank of America to take over Countrywide and its worthless mortgages. No bank would have touched Countrywide on its own. Our government insisted the banks take actions that no business person in his right mind would make.

Reality has shown that selling homes to unqualified buyers has brought our economy nothing but catastrophe.​

 

[FourPawz]

Quote:
So we eliminate our republic in favor of a pure democracy? Remember the old saying, "a democracy is 2 lions and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner". Yikes!

Actually a well set up democracy can work well but that is not what I said.


I said to replace the democratic part of the government with a true democracy.. The house was meant to be a vote by population. Why not make it that now. The senate was supposed to be a vote of the states. Why not make it that now. The presidential veto power was put there to protect from the danger that may come up with democracy as was the supreme court.

Ok, I see what you were trying to say. In addition, I don't think the founders envisioned the legislative branch of our government ending up to be a majority of lawyers who get elected over and over. Nor did they envision those lawyers being wined and dined by our current bumper crop of lobbyists.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I dont think the housing stuff is a cause but a effect.

The issue with the economy is jobs. Remember Ross Pero (spelling) talking about the sucking sound of jobs leaving the country.... Hummmm, An what happened?