Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[georgephillip]

Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.

Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"




huh?

Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?

Slight rewrite:

"The monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation. According to Weber, the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on violence, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit. Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control.

Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.

You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable.

To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.



I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.

I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.



The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in Citizens United tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.

Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.



I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.

The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the federal government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.

As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.

Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?

Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.

The War of 1812 was fought, in part, over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that

My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.

What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.

You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.

Very true. Especially in a time like this, it's necessary to think outside the box.

Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.

The difference between Soft Tyranny and Hard Tyranny is both Time, Stage of Development, and Effort. Sitting back and reaping what you did not sow, is only a stage.
You cannot support Liberty, Private Property on one side, and Equal Distribution on the other, and call it Justice.

To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.

When the Government takes beyond Consent, it is being a Parasite. Government Programs define Success by how muck money it takes out of the system, and burns on programs, where the bigger they get, the more the rest of us hurt. That's not okay. Success is Programs that either eliminate the crutch, where possible, or develop into Self Fueling, Self Sustaining Programs. The Focus should be about making a difference, not creating Dependency.
I actually agree with you on playing World Police, where we are not welcome, and I believe we should be compensated where we are welcome. Worker Right's come best through Legislation and enforcement. My perspective of Honest Government, is the Impartial Referee, maintaining the Rule of Play, and the Integrity of the Field. Not picking Winners and Losers, Handicapping, Betting on Outcome, or Fielding Players of It's own. The Government should not be deciding between Coke and Pepsi, GM and Ford, AT&T or Verizon, GE or Whirlpool. Progressivism, by design, has hurt Small Enterprise and given unfair advantage to the Big Conglomerates. You are in denial. Progressivism demands the Sacrifice of Private Property, to the Controlling Authority, along with Unalienable Right. You are being played. You are looking at Symptoms, not the Root Cause or Core.

I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.

I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.



The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in Citizens United tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.

Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.



I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.

The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the federal government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.

As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.

Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?

Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.

The Unions represent Their Interests, not their Members interests. I know too many Union Workers screwed over by their Unions. The Purpose of the Unions is Political Influence and control. Censorship is a violation of Free Speech. You need to choose.

Stronger Labor Laws by consent and Due Process is the Natural Order, when we are considering Just Laws. Government, at it's best is about serving Justice, Impartially. To think otherwise is absurd. That is not Big Government. The Unions serve their own selfish interest, they are no where near Sainthood, Dear. They put Government into Deficit and Bankrupt Honest Enterprise with unrealistic demands. They create their own Caste System.

The only reason the Left wants a Constitutional Convention is to dump Unalienable Rights, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, Protection against the State, and Freedom of Speech. It is Congresses place to Legislate. What is on that agenda is in part related to who we elect. You seem to think Some parts of Government can't do anything Right, and Others can't do anything wrong. My experience suggests that when the waters get muddy, it's to protect the Predators from being seen and witnessed to. Simplify, where you encounter muddy water.

By original Intent The Federal Government Operates under Enumerated Powers, granted by the Consent of the Governed. You are lost in Hamilton Spin, who argued one concept in order to get the Constitution Ratified, and Reversed himself after Ratification. Government is not God, It's Powers are not limitless in any way. It is Always subject to review, and the Rule of Play, change by Amendment. The Commerce Clause was never designed to decide what you can grow in your Garden. That is an abuse of Power. One of many.

Government is a construct of the people. No construct is greater in value than It's purpose for being. Balance of Power, Checks and Balances, were designed to both protect against Tyranny, and serve Justice first. When there is a conflict between Justice and Government, it is Government that is at fault and bend, rather than trying to redefine what Justice is, and make excuses for why Justice, not Government needs to bend. What you suggest is a corruption and misapplication of Trust.

My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.

What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.

We went to War to Protect our Right to Freely make use of the Sea's and have Our Sovereignty and Property Respected. That was achieved. Yes, a Standing Army was necessary then, and is now. Still, if the focus was more on Reserve and National Guard, we would have more flexibility. Especially in Emergency Response and Disaster Relief. Hamilton corrupted the Relationship between Business and Banking. We could have had a Central Bank, more inclined to True Federalist Principle.

Thinking outside of the Box always adds to perspective, imagine if you were censored because of who you worked for, or what Organization you belonged to, and we all lost the knowledge because of Protocol or Speech infringement.

 

[Katzndogz]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the whole idea. The right is not to go to college. Anyone can go. What not everyone can do is graduate with decent grades and come out knowing more than what they did when they started and with some kind of marketable talent.

That's the right they want. Not equality of education, but equality of outcome.

 

[Katzndogz]

If college kids want a corporation to pay for their college education, they should have applied for a scholarship or a grant. ALL major corporations hand them out. All brokerage houses hand them out. They just have to (dirty word here) qualify.

 

[Samson]

Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.

Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"




huh?

Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?

Slight rewrite:

"The monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation. According to Weber, the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on violence, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit. Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mein Kamph also, "figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."

Is your point that neither are relevant to the 21st century?

 

[Samson]

.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.

I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.

So you're finding that $1 in 2011 doesn't buy as much as it did in 1971.



George, is this the only thing you've bought during the past 40 years?

 

[georgephillip]

"California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement..."

I never bought into Proposition 13 either.

California Proposition 13 (1978) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.

I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.

I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..

 

[The Gadfly]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

"Orchestrated" the recession, and the collapse of the housing bubble? ORCHESTRATED IT? That's ....never mind how ridiculous it is, if you want to make that assertion, back it up! I want you to tell us, in detail, just how you think these entities by themselves planned and "orchestrated" this mess. Please do. I breathlessly await your "explanation"; it should be most enlightening! Keep to demonstrable facts, please; no defending points by saying "Everybody knows that_______!", no suppositions.

 

[Katzndogz]

All those big companies orchestrated the loss of millions of dollars.

 

[The Gadfly]

I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.

I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..

Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket". For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!

 

[Katzndogz]

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.

I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..

Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket". For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!

That may be the whole problem in a nutshell. People expect to get good paying jobs with a liberal arts degree and stopping there. The end of the line! They don't know and are just never told that this won't help them. It explains a lot of frustration. Particularly among the multiple degreed.

 

[flacaltenn]

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.

I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..

Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket". For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!

Amen.. I'm surprised that MOST of these "forgive my giant Student loan" protesters aren't suing their parents. Or the schools that offered "aid" in the form of loans to boost enrollment. All so mom and dad feel good about Katie getting into Stanford as a freshman.

 

[Samson]

"California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement..."

I never bought into Proposition 13 either.

California Proposition 13 (1978) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to start reading something besides wiki.

California, NY, and Texas have some of the highest ranked public highschools in the country according to US News & World Reports Annual rankings.

Best High Schools - US News Education

 

[Katzndogz]

California does have SOME very good schools. Generally, the state is crap when it comes to teaching children.

 

[Samson]

California does have SOME very good schools. Generally, the state is crap when it comes to teaching children.

Literacy rate in the USA is about 100%.

 

[chanel]

I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..

Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket". For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!

Amen.. I'm surprised that MOST of these "forgive my giant Student loan" protesters aren't suing their parents. Or the schools that offered "aid" in the form of loans to boost enrollment. All so mom and dad feel good about Katie getting into Stanford as a freshman.

It's not just mom and dad. Our entire culture tells kids that college is the key to a future. We look down upon people who are "uneducated" - even when those people are more successful. We've eliminated vocational programs in schools; and put all children (even the handicapped) in college prep courses. "College for All" is the new mantra. And no one tells these students that a degree is not a meal ticket; nor even a guarantee of a job.

But beyond that is the price tag. I found this article from '08.

Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent.

“Projecting out to 2036, tuition would go from 11 percent of the family budget to 24 percent of the family budget, and that’s pretty huge,”

Higher Education May Soon Be Unaffordable for Most Americans, Report Says - NYTimes.com

So who's holding these college crooks accountable? Why isn't anyone asking what the hell is going on? Are the students being better served? No. Is the teaching staff making mega-bucks? No. Where is it going? Football? Monkey sex research? Or in the pockets of the overpaid administrators and their friends?

I've seen this bubble coming for quite a while. And I understand the fear of the families and students have mortgaged their futures on false promises. But smart people prepared for it.

We are paying a small fortune for our kids' schooling. And I'll be damned if I am asked to bail out other people's kids. We have all been ripped off. Deal with it.

When will we start telling kids the truth?

 

[flacaltenn]

Chanel::

I think in the future, we're gonna see the need to consider "College" something that stretches out over a lifetime and not just something we do in our late teens, early 20s.. That may fix the inflated prices and focus on "prestige" rather than value.. In fact, your early career may be more of a combination of internship, apprenticeship and education. Because the world is changing so much more quickly, I think you will need to get into a professional in ways OTHER than buying an expensive diploma...

 

[Preius]

I realize I get people's blood boiling. This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it. With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.

As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it. We in the west get all our liberal States together. California is the fifth largest economy on the planet. We could go our own progressive direction. San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!

I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico. Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt. Let the KKK handle it if you wish.

You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military. Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port. To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now. I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it. We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!

 

[Big Fitz]

I realize I get people's blood boiling. This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it. With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.

As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it. We in the west get all our liberal States together. California is the fifth largest economy on the planet. We could go our own progressive direction. San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!

I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico. Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt. Let the KKK handle it if you wish.

You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military. Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port. To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now. I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it. We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!

Blood boiling? pfft. Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.