Remember, remember, the 15th of October (OK so it doesn't rhyme)

[Jude]

What's going to happen October 15th you ask?  Global protests.

I can't say I understand clearly how this movement is interconnected with Occupy Wallstreet (whether one spawned the other or if there was originally a synergistic relationship going on), but I know that "official" Occupy Wallstreet website has thrown its support behind them and essentially is going to take part in these protests.  A lot of the rhetoric is much the same as the Occupy Wallstreet movement, especially the bit they reposted for them.  They've co-opted a page from the Tea Party's by trying to sound like a non-partisan group with clips like this:

It's not any more about parties, organizations or unions. The call should come from all of the organizations and from the people of the world like you

But a cursory examination of their beliefs exposes them to be rather ideologically left-leaning and extreme, if not deeply naive and ignorant.  This is their document I will be taking selections from:  http://takethesquare.net/2011/09/24/15th-october-whats-the-plan-15oct/

Lets kick this off with my favorite quote of populist arrogance from this document:

And that fundamental issue that lie behind all the other problems is that we, the people of the world, are not deciding what the world should be. If we could, most of these problems would just disappear.

Yep, the problems in the world only exist because the ruling class isn't listening to the wisdom of the average person; sounds nice, doesn't it?  We could all live in a wonderful utopia if only the people were the ones making the decision.  Of course, embedded in this is the assumption that the populace is always right; that the people have a political system in mind that would be far better than the one we currently have.  Only 34% of 'the people,' in the United States for instance, actually know that TARP was passed by Bush, and yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that the fundamental problem we're facing is that we're not listening to the wisdom of the masses despite the fact that the nations in which these protests are largely taking place are already Democracies?

Pretending that Democracy has been subverted and corrupted so that the people's wishes are not expressed gives us the ability to deny responsibility for the consequences of our voting habits.  This is the same rhetoric that the Tea Party has used, only repurposed with a new villain in mind.  Where the Tea Party blamed government bureaucracy, debt, and spending for the stifling of freedom and Democracy, OWS and O15 blames private interests.  Who's really to blame?  Lets ask Steny Hoyer.

The American people have every right to be angry [and] disappointed by the performance of the Congress.  Of course, the American people have also elected people with hard stances.  Many people voted for people who thought compromise was not something that they ought to participate in.  If elections have consequences — which I think they do — some of those consequences are getting what you vote for.

It's refreshing to see a politician actually blame something on the American People for once instead of rushing to get on his knees to kiss some populist ass.  Ask yourself a very simple question:  have you voted for someone with principles that they refuse to compromise on?  Maybe abortion or a certain environmental policy is the cornerstone of your political ideology and you were looking for a representative who would never, ever given even an inch on those issues.  Yes, those issues are of tantamount importance to you, and justifiably so in your own mind, but then think about your ideological opponents in the culture and imagine that they looked for their own mirror image in a politician:  someone who was adamantly pro-life and a global warming denier.  We send both of these people to congress at different times and expect them to get along, then we're surprised they don't?  We don't elect people for their ability to solve problems in America, we elect people based on their ability to agree with us; sycophancy should not be a test for political fitness.

Moving on to discuss a few other places in the world, O15 says:

That’s the main idea that is behind all mobilizations in Egypt, Tunisia, Spain, Greece, Iceland, Israel, USA, … We want to decide what our countries should be, instead of dictators, markets, or governments that do not listen to the people. And once we get back the power we will find the specific answers to our problems, probably different from one country to another. That very basic, but powerful idea led us to two main contents for 15O:

The idea that the USA is even remotely comparable to Egypt or Tunisia is laughable.  We don't even have a similar situation to Greece, where the problem truly is social spending running an unsustainable course.  Here we have a problem with a lack of regulation and the rules tipped slightly in favor of the rich.  Yes, they own 40% of the nation's wealth (according to calculations which ignore the value of a person's home, which would otherwise skew the numbers interestingly enough -- plus this is post-recession and it was quite different pre-recession), but there are certain statistics that are completely ignored by "I just want the rich to pay their fair share" types as well.  For example, the top 1% pays 38% of Federal Income Taxes and makes 20% of our national income while the bottom 50% pays 2.7% of Federal Income Tax and makes 12.75% of the Income; so the ultra-rich are already paying a metric fuckton more than than everyone else even based on pure percentages (to the tune of an almost 200% ratio of their income versus federal tax burden, whereas the poor pay less than 25% of theirs).

However, our economic reality being as starkly negative as it is, this doesn't mean that we can afford not to raise taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich, it just means that doing so is more of a "hey we're in trouble please help us out" and less of a "you greedy assholic fucks, gives us your cash or we'll kill you."  So much of what is wrong about OWS and O15 isn't really the basic takeaways of these movements (corporations have too much influence, the rich are too powerful, the economic disparity in this country is ridiculous) as much as it is the solutions on how to fix this and the empirical explanations of the problem.  And a lot of it comes down to tone.  Of course, O15 was nice enough to provide more documents to peruse on their website about this situation, which further extrapolate on what they want:  http://15october.net/how-we-see-it/nothing-to-lose-everything-to-win/

Here's where they finally admit their ideological leanings:

. Faced with this material and existential precarity we demand the democratization of the economic system  and European governance.  This will allow the construction of a new economic model of social welfare based on two aspects: the guarantee of an unconditional access to income (basic income for everybody) and the effective and free access to social rights and common wealth (education, health care, housing, knowledge, environment).

That's right, O15 wants the government to provide housing, education, healthcare, and "basic income."  They're also (unsurprisingly) opposed to austerity measures and they want amnesty for illegal aliens across the board.  Essentially, they are radically liberal in every way imaginable.  And yet they claim to be beyond party, and their sister organization OWS represents the 99%?

If you think this doesn't reflect on OWS as much as O15, I think you're somewhat right.  They don't seem as extreme, but what do they want?  Conveniently, they have a list of demands they're working on:  http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

I'll give you cliffnotes and a summation of the problems with each. They want:

*  More financial regulation.
*  People on Wall Street prosecuted on the basis of "consensus" not evidence (and provide no argument or evidence on what was done illegally).
* To bring back the Equal Time rule (which will be used to castrate talk radio which is predominantly Republican).
* Citizens United overturned, which is a limit on how corporations can spend their money dueto the supposed power of advertising.
* Massive tax increases on the rich and corporations (50s and 60s levels -- this is tantamount to corporate deportation given how insane those rates would be today)
* More regulation and the SEC beefed up
* Laws limiting lobbyists (while failing to realize that what they're doing is lobbying and if they got their demands passed by congress it would be a violation of their very demands at the same time -- BOOM PARADOX)
* The elimination of "the Revolving Door" (so once you're out of government you can't get a job in the sectors you're actually qualified to work in by your experience, basically rendering you unable to take a position where your talents would be best utilized)
* The removal of corporate personhood.

Some of these are good, some of these are bad, but they're all liberal causes and ideas based on dramatically reducing the profitability and power of corporations in the United States to (in theory) aid in the creation of jobs.  How does this make any sense?  How will devastating the private sector like this help unemployment?

OWS isn't as crazy as O15, but then again O15 is a European movement, and Europe is much more liberal than the USA.  They are essentially the analog however, and there are still plenty of people within OWS who agree with O15 on things.  The bottom line is, and the point I've been trying to make, is that OWS and O15 are not presenting non-partisan solutions to our problems.  They're presenting partisan ideas and acting like they're something new and they stand for the people.  Their solutions will not fix the Steny Hoyer problem, if anything they'll make it worse.

[Vekseid]

It's no small fact that a major part of this country's - and this world's - ailments is the fact that Barack Obama, George Bush (either), Bill Clinton, and others in their political and economic 'class', have more in common with the likes of Mubarak, Gaddafi, and other Arabic Sheiks and power-brokers across the globe than they do with the American populace in general. We don't share many plights with the people of Egypt, Spain and Lybia, but we do share that one.

And I'm not sure if some of your specific complaints are necessarily applicable. For one is the simple matter that, in the United States, things have to get bad enough for people to feel a need to change things. That includes getting more informed - and asking which president passed TARP is the wrong question, because Barack Obama played a key role in getting it passed by swaying the Congressional Black Caucus. The right question is 'Which party is responsible?' and the right answer is, of course, 'both'. Regardless, that is a fact point, not a token of 'wisdom'. I've seen a lot of polls where, when Americans were asked 'What should be done?', and if it was taken before media manipulation on the issue - and many times even in spite of it - Americans more often than not had the right decision, especially with regards to socioeconomic policies.

Is this specific movement misguided? Perhaps. Guaranteed income was originally a Republican idea, after all, and has been proposed by right-wingers at least twice, now, most recently with the 'Fair'tax plan. Give people money, charge a massively regressive tax rate, and no more pesky middle class. Giving everyone a basic set of income isn't necessarily worse than leaving them unemployed and fending for themselves. I would prefer it take the form of a new WPA, for example.

[Caehlim]

Only 34% of 'the people,' in the United States for instance, actually know that TARP was passed by Bush

This is not altogether surprising. For the sake of argument, let's say that being politically educated requires one hour of work a day spent in a combination of reading books, watching the news and engaging in some informed discussion. What reward are you offered for this? You're more likely that when you cast your vote, you'll be voting for someone who would serve your interests once elected. However, most of the time, your vote won't change any actual result.

What rational person would consider this a worthwhile investment of time? Now, I'm not saying there aren't certain fringe benefits. I enjoy learning about the political process, because I find it entertaining and stimulating but it doesn't actually provide any direct benefit in how I interact with the political system.

This is one of those things, where there is no benefit to one person studying it (unless they intend on using it for an occupation in writing books, teaching or becoming employed within the political system). It's only useful if everyone, or at least a large number of people become more politically educated.

If nothing else, group movements like OWS or O15 can actually be the solution to your complaint. By getting people involved and interested in the system within a large block, it can then become profitable to these people if they all start learning more about politics. There's no guarantee that they will, groups like this may become insular and have self-reinforcing systems of doctrine. However by giving these people the idea that they can influence politics, it then makes it rational for them to learn political theory.

Ask yourself a very simple question:  have you voted for someone with principles that they refuse to compromise on?

No, I'd have to find a politician with principles they refuse to compromise on first ;). (Joking... sort of)

Essentially, they are radically liberal in every way imaginable.  And yet they claim to be beyond party, and their sister organization OWS represents the 99%?

I've never met a political group that didn't claim to represent "the real interestests" of "the average citizen" and oppose those evil "special interests groups" (which are always whichever villain fits their idealogy). Sure it always involves some degree of no true scotsman, but it's a standard cliche within political dialogue.

The bottom line is, and the point I've been trying to make, is that OWS and O15 are not presenting non-partisan solutions to our problems.  They're presenting partisan ideas and acting like they're something new and they stand for the people.

Pretty standard political spin. Are you really that surprised?

What would you like them to say, "Yes, this is all pretty standard really. Just more of the same. Don't bother covering us on media outlets or lending any support to us"? Now that would make them truly politically naive.

[Oniya]

Actually, you might be interested to read this article. 

Apparently, some guy named Denninger has thrown his support behind OWS.

And yes, I know who Karl Denninger is.  He's also pretty torqued at what the Tea Party has become.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well I find it interesting that all the tea party supported politicians are saying that OWS is 'bad' or that 'it's not done that way'.

Then I look at the stuff they've done in the last two years and wonder. Why is it 'good' to bend over backwards to give banks and corps TRILLIONS and at the same time castrate the education system and unions.

Everywhere I see comments on folks on how we need to change our outlook from 'blue collar' to 'white collar' jobs as the focus of our economy while the same time these pundits cut the balls off our education system. How can we create jobs when we don't supply the skill base for it?

[Caela]

Everywhere I see comments on folks on how we need to change our outlook from 'blue collar' to 'white collar' jobs as the focus of our economy while the same time these pundits cut the balls off our education system. How can we create jobs when we don't supply the skill base for it?

This is a personal tweak of mine. I think we already have too much of an emphasis on white collar jobs and the idea that college is the be all and end all of decent jobs in this country. You don't need to be a doctor, lawyer, or stock broker to have a decent job, there are plenty of skilled trades out there that either need now, or will shortly, need workers to fill jobs as baby boomers retire and stop doing them. There should be no stigma on things like being a plumber, carpenter, or electrician and yet people will look down on you for doing a skilled trade instead of having some almighty degree.

I'd like to see what a lawyer would do if he couldn't call a plumber to fix his toilet.

/end rant

Sorry, personal peeve of mine. I know people that sneer at the idea of being a plumber or carpenter and think they are somehow superior to those with these jobs all because they have some degree...even while that degree is useless to them and those same people are working retail making a quarter of what my Uncle makes as a Master Plumber who owns his own business.

[Asuras]

The job market is way better for white collar jobs than blue collar jobs. That would indicate that we should still pull people into white collar jobs.

Obviously there will always be blue collar jobs but...there is a demand imbalance. And we still aren't investing enough in making people white collar people.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Part of the issue with the 99% movement and the Occupy movement is that they GOT an education.  They went through the trouble and did "the right thing" but can't pay their loans cause there are no jobs and the loans are outrageous.  And a lot of them don't want a hand out.  They just want to be able to pay their bills and provide for their families.  And they're mad that big business messes up and gets a second chance that THEY pay for but they can't even get/maintain a job to pay their bills.  A lot of people just want affordable health care.  They're sick, hurt, dying. . .and can't see a doctor.  My boyfriends teeth are rotting out of his head because of genetics but he can't afford to do anything about it until it's an emergency and the pain is excruciating or he has to go to a free clinic to have all the teeth yanked out of his head with no replacements. 

[Noelle]

It's no small fact that a major part of this country's - and this world's - ailments is the fact that Barack Obama, George Bush (either), Bill Clinton, and others in their political and economic 'class', have more in common with the likes of Mubarak, Gaddafi, and other Arabic Sheiks and power-brokers across the globe than they do with the American populace in general. We don't share many plights with the people of Egypt, Spain and Lybia, but we do share that one.

No small fact, indeed - one that you should perhaps provide evidence for? Comparing the last handful of American presidents to men who have very obviously oppressed and massively brutalized their people is not really one that should be thrown around this casually.

If you ask me, this is an incredible hyperbole - Have these men in power made questionable decisions? Absolutely. Have they sent in a military force to shoot live rounds against their own citizens? Have they limited, censored, or cut vital flows of information from reaching the population? Have they executed Americans for dissenting? ...Not even close.

I'd be curious to hear what kind of standard unites "the American populace in general" that would put people we elect close to men who have committed crimes against humanity than the vast and incredibly varied population of Americans that live in our country. As it is, this is awfully vague and comes across as more than a bit exaggerated.

[Vekseid]

Social circles and economic class. What other standard is there? They talk with the same people, routinely meet with the same people, listen to the same people's concerns.

You want to meet Obama and have a serious policy discussion with him, you had to cough up $28,500 two months before his election. A member here wanted to meet him when he was in Puerto Rico. She, naturally, did not have that sort of money. There are a few members here who could do that, yes. But do it regularly enough to establish a rapport?

This wasn't always true. Certainly, the world is more peaceful for organizations like the Bildeburg group, but the price for that peace is the concerns of other world leaders are more important than those of the people they govern, even to those governing them. And stuff like this happens. And who owns some of these foreign banks? How did that happen?

[Noelle]

Honestly, that assessment feels more like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon than it does "Obama = Gaddafi". By those standards, anyone with any kind of money or fame is suddenly more like an oppressive dictator who kills his own people.

Neither of those links have anything to do with how any of our presidents have done anything that can equate to killing, torturing, and oppressing the citizens they govern. It feels like a sensationalized comparison with more shock value than substance (cue Godwin's Law), but I invite the evidence otherwise.

[Vekseid]

Honestly, that assessment feels more like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon than it does "Obama = Gaddafi". By those standards, anyone with any kind of money or fame is suddenly more like an oppressive dictator who kills his own people.

There's a reason I specified the leadership of the Arab world. There are exceptions and people who are clearly comparatively on the fringe of this social network in our society - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two well-known examples in the West. Six degrees is a great deal different than one degree. These people know each other, they know the same people, and listen to the same people's concerns. This revelation was one of the causes behind the Arab Srping.

Neither of those links have anything to do with how any of our presidents have done anything that can equate to killing, torturing, and oppressing the citizens they govern. It feels like a sensationalized comparison with more shock value than substance (cue Godwin's Law), but I invite the evidence otherwise.

This has no relevance to my post, as I have mentioned already.

[Jude]

Yes, world leaders... tend to talk to other world leaders.  If you're trying to make that out to be a relevant facet that motivates their actions, I think you're committing a series of fallacies.  That's like saying "don't go to a hospital, everybody's sick there!"

Also gonna guess that if you look at Obama's extended social circles he has very little in common with Mubarak.  Then again, maybe Sasha and Malia hang out in Mubarak's prison cell on the weekends, and I bet Gaddafi invited “Common” aka Lonnie Rashid Lynn to do a poetry reading at his palace.

[Vekseid]

Yes, world leaders... tend to talk to other world leaders.  If you're trying to make that out to be a relevant facet that motivates their actions, I think you're committing a series of fallacies.

I mentioned before that this was not always the case. Up until the 1980's, leaders - both business and political - in the US were much more connected to American citizens. I even named two that still do.

And if I've made a fallacy, state it.

  That's like saying "don't go to a hospital, everybody's sick there!"

This, for example, is false equivalence. Treating with other leaders does not require giving them billions while your own citizenry suffers. I don't doubt that they -thought- they were doing the right thing.

Also gonna guess that if you look at Obama's extended social circles he has very little in common with Mubarak.

Rather than guess, I'd suggest studying up on Mubarak. He was very well liked in the US for embracing the West as thoroughly as he did. Some people considered Obama's distancing from Mubarak a betrayal, and not just in the Middle East.

Then again, maybe Sasha and Malia hang out in Mubarak's prison cell on the weekends, and I bet Gaddafi invited “Common” aka Lonnie Rashid Lynn to do a poetry reading at his palace.

If you can't resist trolling, you might try resisting posting until you can.

[Noelle]

I'm gonna back up a post or so and readdress a few things.

Social circles and economic class. What other standard is there? They talk with the same people, routinely meet with the same people, listen to the same people's concerns.

What other standard is there? Well, if you're trying to compare one of our presidents to people who have effectively committed atrocious crimes against humanity, I would start with their actions or what you're doing is as dubious to me as invoking Godwin's Law and becomes purely guilt by association.

I am going to assert that their overlapping "social circle" is poor criteria, and criteria that has not come with much evidence on your behalf - no evidence of who is in this social circle and why it's relevant or makes them akin to someone who commits atrocious crimes against humanity. So far, it's been vaguely anecdotal. To make a long story slightly shorter, I'm asking you for evidence that A) this so-called "social circle" exists in some capacity and B) it matters. I'm afraid we're skipping right along to the path of being able to justify comparing damn near anyone to Hitler just because one part of their Venn Diagram overlaps.

Without getting too far into the conspiracy theory of the Bilderberg Group, Bill Gates was an attending member and should also, by proxy, be on par with the same men you're comparing our presidents to, and I'm almost positive Mubarak wouldn't approve of actively pouring the kind of money Bill Gates has into humanitarian efforts and literacy programs.

If I'm to take this "social circle" talk seriously, then I'd start to assert that Mariah Carey and Beyonce are also closer to Gaddafi than the so-called "American people" (whose attributes you have also not made clear except to insinuate that we all apparently have something in common that is lacking in American presidents and dictators alike) -- and wouldn't you know it, they have a lot of money and cultural influence, as well!

You want to meet Obama and have a serious policy discussion with him, you had to cough up $28,500 two months before his election. A member here wanted to meet him when he was in Puerto Rico. She, naturally, did not have that sort of money. There are a few members here who could do that, yes. But do it regularly enough to establish a rapport?

Not quite sure I get your point with this. Are you making a complaint that the president charges a hefty fee to show up somewhere and so people who are rich/powerful can afford to "build rapport"? I'm pretty sure that world leaders aren't necessarily good buddies just because they happen to meet a handful of times to talk business and maybe have dinner together.

I guess my point here is that this idea of "social circles" is tenuous and a wildly inconsistent standard. Are we even taking into account with this theory that there are a number of positive influences in the same social circles?

I mentioned before that this was not always the case. Up until the 1980's, leaders - both business and political - in the US were much more connected to American citizens. I even named two that still do.

Again, what does this even mean? What singular, unifying trait of "American citizens" are you even referring to here and what qualifies as "connected"? Is it enough to have grown up with a single mother raising you to be connected? Is the fact that you worked your way up the political ladder starting from community organizing connecting enough? Is speaking a certain way enough? I can't help but be reminded of the way politicians refer to "the American people" as some monolithic group that agrees with them. "The American People want ______" or "The American People think ______", but they never actually qualify what groups in specific or account for those who disagree.

[Jude]

I mentioned before that this was not always the case. Up until the 1980's, leaders - both business and political - in the US were much more connected to American citizens. I even named two that still do.

What exactly did US leaders do in the 1980s that they no longer do in order to connect to American citizens?

This, for example, is false equivalence. Treating with other leaders does not require giving them billions while your own citizenry suffers. I don't doubt that they -thought- they were doing the right thing.

It's only false equivalence if the logic being employed in each circumstance is dissimilar.  My point was that it is illogical to assume that one gets sick if they go to the hospital because it's confusing correlation with causation.  You're making a similar logical fault by assuming the fact that world leaders talk to each other influences them to act in the best interests of each other.  If that were the case, wouldn't there be no war?

As far as the giving billions away thing... Loans are not giving money away.  You're using exaggerated language to drive home your point very unfairly while presenting limited points of data on wrongdoing without explanations from the other side (for the sake of fairness) or factual context to explain the situation in greater scope (such as who the other 16 trillion was lent to).  If you lend out 16 trillion dollars to banks and only 3 billion of it goes to questionable sources, that's uh... Well, basically a saintly accomplishment.

The choice on who to lend to wasn't even made by an elected official... It was made by the Fed, whose officials are appointed.  There's an additional degree of separation there that makes the whole thing just that much more implausible.

Rather than guess, I'd suggest studying up on Mubarak. He was very well liked in the US for embracing the West as thoroughly as he did. Some people considered Obama's distancing from Mubarak a betrayal, and not just in the Middle East.

Well, of course.  The US has a history of getting into bed with brutal dictators when it serves our purposes.  We're more interested in regional stability than we are in the people's rights in the area.  This is nothing new, but it's more about promoting American interests than it is some kind of international kinship between the political elite of various nations.  And this practice has been going on basically since the closing of the Western Frontier (Cuba then the Banana Republic meddling).  It's a form of economic imperialism, though we're not nearly as heavy-handed about it or draconian as we used to be.

If you can't resist trolling, you might try resisting posting until you can.

I'm  not actually trying to be combative or uncivil, I figured employing Reductio ad absurdum was safe.  It is an accepted, well-known debate tactic -- how is that trolling?

[Vekseid]

What exactly did US leaders do in the 1980s that they no longer do in order to connect to American citizens?

Stuck to Keynesian economics, for one.

It's only false equivalence if the logic being employed in each circumstance is dissimilar.  My point was that it is illogical to assume that one gets sick if they go to the hospital because it's confusing correlation with causation.  You're making a similar logical fault by assuming the fact that world leaders talk to each other influences them to act in the best interests of each other.  If that were the case, wouldn't there be no war?

I'm not sure if I'm reading the last sentence correctly. When, exactly, was the last threat of war between minor world powers? The closest thing I can think of is various calls for intervention in Africa where France is royally making things suck. And that isn't even a proxy conflict - France just wants to protect its uranium mines.

Take, for example, the cable releases regarding the coordination of American antagonism towards Iran. Publicly, Arab leaders were against America for it. Privately, they asked America to do something about Iran.

As far as the giving billions away thing... Loans are not giving money away.  You're using exaggerated language to drive home your point very unfairly while presenting limited points of data on wrongdoing without explanations from the other side (for the sake of fairness) or factual context to explain the situation in greater scope (such as who the other 16 trillion was lent to).  If you lend out 16 trillion dollars to banks and only 3 billion of it goes to questionable sources, that's uh... Well, basically a saintly accomplishment.

They are when they're from the Fed.. They're non-recourse loans. Not able to pay it back? No big deal.

It's in the interest of the largest banks to do so, of course. The Fed asking Congress for 16 trillion (or more, Obama prevented the earliest loans from being revealed) would be a political catastrophe to put it mildly.

Though I'd love to know if you can find three million that didn't go to a questionable source. For one, it's only a partial list, for two, this data was never intended to be public in the first place - it took an act of Congress as is. I know, ostensibly, the logical reason behind the megabanks needing a year's worth of the GDP in loan guarantees. That they had to hide such a colossal failure is telling on its own.

The choice on who to lend to wasn't even made by an elected official... It was made by the Fed, whose officials are appointed.

Oh no, it's worse than that, if you bothered to read the links. The Fed didn't even appropriate the money themselves - they outsourced most of it to the big banks.

Appointed versus elected versus self-made versus inherited is rather moot when it comes to discussing the isolation of a social class, however.

There's an additional degree of separation there that makes the whole thing just that much more implausible.Well, of course.  The US has a history of getting into bed with brutal dictators when it serves our purposes.  We're more interested in regional stability than we are in the people's rights in the area.  This is nothing new, but it's more about promoting American interests than it is some kind of international kinship between the political elite of various nations.  And this practice has been going on basically since the closing of the Western Frontier (Cuba then the Banana Republic meddling).  It's a form of economic imperialism, though we're not nearly as heavy-handed about it or draconian as we used to be.

And yet, rather than say, take over ~20 trillion in loan guarantees (including TARP, etc) to American citizens directly - say, refinance up to $100k of every voting age citizen's debts - which would have done wonders for the economy by directly easing Americans' debt burdens - it all went to big banks and the rich. And trillions still went overseas. By what sort of process do you think that happened?

I'm  not actually trying to be combative or uncivil, I figured employing Reductio ad absurdum was safe.  It is an accepted, well-known debate tactic -- how is that trolling?

Reductio ad absurdum is not the same as throwing out an absurd statement, which is more technically termed ad ridiculum. The former is perfectly acceptable. The latter is the simplest and most blatant form of trolling. Sometimes people do it when emotional, other times people are just being trolls.

I should not have to even tell you that, however. I find it difficult to believe that you are being honest in not knowing what a term you just used means. I expect an explanation.

[Oniya]

Just as a note - this weekend, there is going to be an open-mic rally in D.C., called the 'Enough is Enough March'.  Once again, I find myself wishing I was back in the NoVA area.  If you're honestly interested in why the Occupiers are - erm - 'occupying', it's going to be live-streamed.

[The Dark Raven]

I will remember the 29th of October as by co-worker's wedding.  Happy Laur's Day! *giggles*
/hijack

[Noelle]

I wait with great anticipation for the evidence I politely requested.

[Jude]

Threatening people as you are currently doing is hardly civil, I don't see how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who's condescending me in the way you are.  I'm done.

[Zakharra]

And yet, rather than say, take over ~20 trillion in loan guarantees (including TARP, etc) to American citizens directly -say, refinance up to $100k of every voting age citizen's debts - which would have done wonders for the economy by directly easing Americans' debt burdens - it all went to big banks and the rich. And trillions still went overseas. By what sort of process do you think that happened?

Wouldn't that have instead made -every single  voting aged adult- in debt to the banks and basically ripped up the contracts the people signed to the banks in good faith?

[Oniya]

Refinancing would allow many - if not most - of those people to take advantage of the interest rates that have dropped in the last 5 years (the interest rate on my mortgage was roughly 6.5% when we bought the house - the current rate is close to half that).  This could save them thousands of dollars in interest fees alone, not to mention lowering the monthly payments to something that doesn't have them deciding between debt-repayment and basic survival costs (food, medicine, utilities).  Also, just because a refinancing program is available doesn't mean that anyone is required to take advantage of it.  If they look over the numbers and determine that (for whatever reason) they don't want to take advantage of it, they don't have to.

[Zakharra]

 But isn't that basically the government telling the banks they will refinance or else? Aren't there rules against refinancing too often? I haven't had a loan in many years, so I'm vague on the details, but I seem to remember that you are only allowed to refinance every so often.

[Oniya]

I didn't see anything in the proposal that indicated that this would be more than a one-time refi.  In essence, it would be like the bailouts that the government gave to the big corps like GM - the money gets repaid, just at the lower interest rate.  If there are rules about how often one can refi, then I would assume that the clock would be re-started at the time of this 'intervention refi'.

[Zakharra]

 The problem I see is that it wouldn't be considered a one time thing. If the government did it once, why not again? After all, the people who have the loans need the help.  It seems like to me that the government would be giving permission for people to take out bad loans and would be guaranteeing that it would cover them if they have a problem.

Housing/car loans, you enters those in good faith (Mostly. I know there are crooked loan providers, but  the majority of loans and loan providers would be  on the up and up.), the same with  most other loans I assume. The price of student loans (heard on the radio that is one of the demands of the Occupy (your favorite street/city) movement) seems a bit different. Their cost is more or less associated with the price collages and universities that charge for an education, and that price rises every year. Why are they never pounded like companies are when prices rise a lot?

[Vekseid]

I'm gonna back up a post or so and readdress a few things.

What other standard is there? Well, if you're trying to compare one of our presidents to people who have effectively committed atrocious crimes against humanity, I would start with their actions or what you're doing is as dubious to me as invoking Godwin's Law and becomes purely guilt by association.

Since I'm not making such a comparision, this is not a function of my argument. I used "More in common with" in terms of socioeconomic status. How much money they make. The fact that they meet, in most cases rather regularly. That they deal with many of the same companies and organizations, though the latter is less true of Libya than the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt.

The US hasn't needed to suppress it's own people en mass since the Battle of Blair Mountain. Instead the US does it to other countries. Cuba, the origin of the term 'Banana Republic', Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

The US hasn't needed to suppress people by the thousands since the Battle of Blair Mountain. Of course, killing innocents in other countries doesn't count, apparently. Most US presidents have some innocent blood on their hands, from Washington burning innocent villages, to the Trail of Tears, to the Spanish-American War, to the founding of the term 'Banana Republic', to the excessive sanctions on Iraq, and now we have predator drone assassinations where up to thirty innocents dying is 'okay'. If you're going to talk about mass murder, why don't those atrocities count? Because it's 'warfare'?

It's really the same problem. They don't count because you don't know them. You don't know their struggles, their reasons, their loves, their joy and sadness. To you, they are a statistic.

I am going to assert that their overlapping "social circle" is poor criteria, and criteria that has not come with much evidence on your behalf - no evidence of who is in this social circle and why it's relevant or makes them akin to someone who commits atrocious crimes against humanity. So far, it's been vaguely anecdotal. To make a long story slightly shorter, I'm asking you for evidence that A) this so-called "social circle" exists in some capacity and B) it matters. I'm afraid we're skipping right along to the path of being able to justify comparing damn near anyone to Hitler just because one part of their Venn Diagram overlaps.

Do you think they worry about the same things their citizens do? Do you think they have the same problems?

Here's an interesting challenge. Find me someone in Obama's social circle who has been unemployed and looking for work for more than a year. Or even a month. Then do the same for Mubarak before his ousting. Or the CEO of any major corporation.

They are not, personally, presented with the concerns of their citizenry. That is why it matters. It doesn't make them evil. But even the best of them live in a bubble. For the same reason you don't personally experience the suffering of families when a drone kills thirty people at a funeral.

Without getting too far into the conspiracy theory of the Bilderberg Group, Bill Gates was an attending member and should also, by proxy, be on par with the same men you're comparing our presidents to, and I'm almost positive Mubarak wouldn't approve of actively pouring the kind of money Bill Gates has into humanitarian efforts and literacy programs.

Don't know what Mubarak thinks. I separate them because Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elizabeth Warren, etc. have a mathematical understanding of what is wrong with the status quo. They of course pay their people well, but they didn't become the two richest people on the planet (and would have stayed there were it not for their donations) by being idiots. More to the point, they had to employ intelligent people to do their work for them, with rather little in the way of 'peasants' like Walmart.

If I'm to take this "social circle" talk seriously, then I'd start to assert that Mariah Carey and Beyonce are also closer to Gaddafi than the so-called "American people" (whose attributes you have also not made clear except to insinuate that we all apparently have something in common that is lacking in American presidents and dictators alike) -- and wouldn't you know it, they have a lot of money and cultural influence, as well!

Dunno about those two, but for many celebrities (Chuck Norris comes to mind), yep.

Not quite sure I get your point with this. Are you making a complaint that the president charges a hefty fee to show up somewhere and so people who are rich/powerful can afford to "build rapport"? I'm pretty sure that world leaders aren't necessarily good buddies just because they happen to meet a handful of times to talk business and maybe have dinner together.

For all I hear about Sarkozy and Chirac, the impression I get is yes, they do form close friendships with many other world leaders, with a few exceptions.

I guess my point here is that this idea of "social circles" is tenuous and a wildly inconsistent standard. Are we even taking into account with this theory that there are a number of positive influences in the same social circles?

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of my argument.

Why aren't jobs a priority in this country? It's American's number one request. But that isn't getting heard, somehow.

Why?

They do not personally encounter the problem of joblessness. They don't know homeless people. They don't know people who risk homelessness. The people who know these people aren't a majority of those who make decisions for this country, or other countries.

The problem I see is that it wouldn't be considered a one time thing. If the government did it once, why not again? After all, the people who have the loans need the help.  It seems like to me that the government would be giving permission for people to take out bad loans and would be guaranteeing that it would cover them if they have a problem.

Oh, it's far from an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be to constitutionally set a retroactive definition of usury and bad lending practices, then set up a commission to make sure the banks that engaged in such predatory lending paid for their behavior - annulling the loans entirely, including the value of all payments, foreclosures and repossessions made, and hold the top hundred shareholders personally liable for all debts so incurred.

And this situation will never happen again. Because the problem was with the assholes who lent out the money knowing it would eventually cause an explosion, and knowing - still safely, with a ~20 trillion dollar rescue from the government - that the government would bail them out if they failed. And they did. And nothing was fixed.

The lender should assume all responsibility for determining the character of the borrower. That's how it worked when the system was working, and that's how it should work again.

Housing/car loans, you enters those in good faith (Mostly. I know there are crooked loan providers, but  the majority of loans and loan providers would be  on the up and up.), the same with  most other loans I assume. The price of student loans (heard on the radio that is one of the demands of the Occupy (your favorite street/city) movement) seems a bit different. Their cost is more or less associated with the price collages and universities that charge for an education, and that price rises every year. Why are they never pounded like companies are when prices rise a lot?

Actually the problem with student loans is that wages have not risen in line with production, while college costs have. So have costs of eating, housing, and other such factors - but wages have not risen with them. Since education is seen as discretionary, and discretionary income actually went negative just before the crash, people think that debts of $50k-$100k are a big deal, when they should not be.

Basically anyone making less than ~$300k a year right now is making less than they would have if the economic policies of the 60s and earlier had remained in place. The median wage in this country is something like $25k a year. Look up the median income in Norway.

Then look up the means. The mean income, in the US, is $100k per year.

People on this forum have gloated about making $60k a year. I know people who have written off more than that without batting an eyelash. Discussing economics with them is interesting - they really don't know the sorts of traps people get into these days.

Threatening people as you are currently doing is hardly civil, I don't see how I'm supposed to have a discussion with someone who's condescending me in the way you are.  I'm done.

Playing the 'staff abuse' card does not win you any points, nor does it magically make your claims of incivility true. If you have an issue with a staff member, you can address it to another staff member. If you are in the right, things will happen. Trieste has reversed my decisions before. Everyone gets a hot head at times, I want to make sure that the best possible result comes of it.

Abusing terminology to that degree, however, is both blatant and premeditated. You had to think that one through. There's no hot-headed excuse, there.

[Zakharra]

Oh, it's far from an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be to constitutionally set a retroactive definition of usury and bad lending practices, then set up a commission to make sure the banks that engaged in such predatory lending paid for their behavior - annulling the loans entirely, including the value of all payments, foreclosures and repossessions made, and hold the top hundred shareholders personally liable for all debts so incurred.

And this situation will never happen again. Because the problem was with the assholes who lent out the money knowing it would eventually cause an explosion, and knowing - still safely, with a ~20 trillion dollar rescue from the government - that the government would bail them out if they failed. And they did. And nothing was fixed.

The lender should assume all responsibility for determining the character of the borrower. That's how it worked when the system was working, and that's how it should work again.

Part of the problem was the government basically telling the banks that they -had- to make loans to people they knew would have a high chance of defaulting. In that I cannot blame the banks for getting ride of those loans ASAP.   It wasn't a matter of banks being that greedy that they'd take money from anyone, although greed does factor into it, but from governmental regulations forcing banks to make bad loans.

Actually the problem with student loans is that wages have not risen in line with production, while college costs have. So have costs of eating, housing, and other such factors - but wages have not risen with them. Since education is seen as discretionary, and discretionary income actually went negative just before the crash, people think that debts of $50k-$100k are a big deal, when they should not be.

Basically anyone making less than ~$300k a year right now is making less than they would have if the economic policies of the 60s and earlier had remained in place. The median wage in this country is something like $25k a year. Look up the median income in Norway.

Then look up the means. The mean income, in the US, is $100k per year.

People on this forum have gloated about making $60k a year. I know people who have written off more than that without batting an eyelash. Discussing economics with them is interesting - they really don't know the sorts of traps people get into these days.

Then why do I see in the news, businesses and companies that sell goods and services (oil companies are a big target) are routinely hammered for higher prices and demands that they are too expensive and costly, but much less the same thing being said about student loans? It is more prevalent now than it used to be. I'm seeing more anger at the loans, but aside from just getting more loans, I am seeing next to nothing about why the costs are being raised so high and fast, and why don't the collages and universities find ways to cut the cost.

[Callie Del Noire]

Part of the problem was the government basically telling the banks that they -had- to make loans to people they knew would have a high chance of defaulting. In that I cannot blame the banks for getting ride of those loans ASAP.   It wasn't a matter of banks being that greedy that they'd take money from anyone, although greed does factor into it, but from governmental regulations forcing banks to make bad loans.

Banks are FORCED to make bad loans? Oh no.. they pushed through deregulation which DIMINISHED governmental oversight. With fewer rules on what they could do, and corporate greed looking for ways to capitalize on that (not to mention decreasing numbers of enforcement and investigators around). The disciples of Gordon Gecko simply played pass the toxic bill till the music stopped playing and the hot potatoe couldn't be hidden anymore.

Then why do I see in the news, businesses and companies that sell goods and services (oil companies are a big target) are routinely hammered for higher prices and demands that they are too expensive and costly, but much less the same thing being said about student loans? It is more prevalent now than it used to be. I'm seeing more anger at the loans, but aside from just getting more loans, I am seeing next to nothing about why the costs are being raised so high and fast, and why don't the collages and universities find ways to cut the cost.

I'd like to see how costs could be lessened. Most educators I know haven't seen a pay raise worth noting in years, and in absolute values they make less than they did before. Money costs outside the higher education field continue to go up. Books have continued to bloat in costs as the publishers look on it as a 'captive audience' and constantly 'updating' books to maximize their prices. Add in outside costs like utilities, upkeep and general costs going up not to mention they have to expand/upgrade/update the campus. How much does a university pay a year in software licenses alone? (I had a friend who got burned by one company who sold his IT department something like 1200 licenses, then dropped support of that anti-virus program for it's successor before the year was out.)

[Trieste]

Then why do I see in the news, businesses and companies that sell goods and services (oil companies are a big target) are routinely hammered for higher prices and demands that they are too expensive and costly, but much less the same thing being said about student loans? It is more prevalent now than it used to be. I'm seeing more anger at the loans, but aside from just getting more loans, I am seeing next to nothing about why the costs are being raised so high and fast, and why don't the collages and universities find ways to cut the cost.

Just to quickly answer this question, it depends on your social circle. I hear complaints about the high prices of fees, books, and other college costs regularly. Almost all of my friends are at least $40k in debt. But that's because I am a college student, and I am surrounded by college students day in and day out. My parents have three children currently in college, so they talk about. Their peers who also have children in college talk about it with one another. It's been on the news, too, especially when the Department of Ed launched their college cost comparison site this past summer.

As far as why costs are shooting up while quality is not necessarily improving, I'm not sure I can comment about the specifics. It's such a broad and complicated issue. However, I can tell you that the chancellor on this campus makes 300k a year and has a house that's paid for by the state. She has a roomy sedan paid for by the state, and she is driven around in her roomy sedan by a driver who is on the state payroll. The university started charging a parking fee to all students a couple years here, for lots that were already built and have not been improved - lots that don't even have a hope of accommodating the expanding student population here. I pay hundreds of dollars per semester in lab fees, even when I don't have labs that semester, in order to work in labs with 20- and 30-year old equipment. If someone were to ask me where my fees and tuition were going, I couldn't tell them. All I can tell you is where they're not going.

[Vekseid]

Part of the problem was the government basically telling the banks that they -had- to make loans to people they knew would have a high chance of defaulting. In that I cannot blame the banks for getting ride of those loans ASAP.   It wasn't a matter of banks being that greedy that they'd take money from anyone, although greed does factor into it, but from governmental regulations forcing banks to make bad loans.

I'm pretty sure this claim has been debunked already on this forum. The subprime loan scam started long before 2004. Even then, $400 billion does not explain $20 trillion worth of insolvency.

Then why do I see in the news, businesses and companies that sell goods and services (oil companies are a big target) are routinely hammered for higher prices and demands that they are too expensive and costly, but much less the same thing being said about student loans? It is more prevalent now than it used to be. I'm seeing more anger at the loans, but aside from just getting more loans, I am seeing next to nothing about why the costs are being raised so high and fast, and why don't the collages and universities find ways to cut the cost.

It certainly deserves explanation. But I'm not sure where you think complaints about college prices are new. It's been going on for decades.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know.. once upon a time, it used to be a good way to combine tax write offs to give companies credit for donating materials to schools and investing in R&D. How much of the technology you use in the PCs that you're reading this post on got their start in the research movement of the 50s, 60s and 70s into small transistors and early integrated circuitry?

American innovative measures stalled sometime after the corporate tax break for R&D went away in the late 70s.

I say we start encouraging reinvestment in our education system rather than hiding cash overseas. Give tax breaks to corporate investment into R&D and Education donations rather than giving GE (for example) tax breaks for find ways to hide money overseas. Bring our money home and encourage US Corps to look into reinvesting in the country rather than milking the system the way they do now.

[Noelle]

Since I'm not making such a comparision, this is not a function of my argument. I used "More in common with" in terms of socioeconomic status. How much money they make. The fact that they meet, in most cases rather regularly. That they deal with many of the same companies and organizations, though the latter is less true of Libya than the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt.

This is still incredibly weak and still lacks support that I've asked for. You keep dodging with vague terminology and vague quantifiers. "same companies and organizations" -- okay, who? And what has been the direct result of that? Are there any atrocious acts that have come from those deals, or are we grasping at connections here? Besides that, wouldn't the companies they deal with be more of a concern to you as opposed to a direct fault of one of our presidents for necessarily dealing with them? Again -- simply linking the people they have in common Venn diagram-style is really not making a point. It sounds a bit like a Glenn Beck teaching moment.

You still haven't demonstrated tangible evidence of A) solid links and B) their direct repercussions.

Of course, killing innocents in other countries doesn't count, apparently. Most US presidents have some innocent blood on their hands, from Washington burning innocent villages, to the Trail of Tears, to the Spanish-American War, to the founding of the term 'Banana Republic', to the excessive sanctions on Iraq, and now we have predator drone assassinations where up to thirty innocents dying is 'okay'. If you're going to talk about mass murder, why don't those atrocities count? Because it's 'warfare'?

You are lumping quite a few different situations together under the same umbrella. Nobody here is arguing that any amount of death is 'okay', but it's dishonest to pretend that all casualties of war are weighed equally and mean the same thing and came about under the same circumstances. It's dishonest to say that ordering your military on your own protesting civilians is exactly the same as ordering NATO to assist in liberating a country and then accidentally catching civilians in a drone strike. Are some deaths unfair? Sure they are, and we should always take steps to reduce those numbers, but I would be surprised to ever see them go down to zero so long as there are wars in the world. War is inherently unfair - nobody has to win. Even so, if I can just refer back to your first quotation up there, if you're not directly comparing the actions of the two, then none of this is relevant to what we're talking about anyway and there is no need for either of us to talk about it - so either it is or isn't relevant, you need to decide.

Interestingly, you previously insinuated that presidents who were around before the last 20-30 years or so were apparently "more in touch" with "the American people". You seemed to insinuate that those presidents were somehow better, and yet you are citing incidences from eras like those of the Spanish-American War? This is really starting to get off-topic, I think.

It's really the same problem. They don't count because you don't know them. You don't know their struggles, their reasons, their loves, their joy and sadness. To you, they are a statistic.

I don't really care to debate against blatant appeals to emotion, thank you.

Here's an interesting challenge. Find me someone in Obama's social circle who has been unemployed and looking for work for more than a year. Or even a month. Then do the same for Mubarak before his ousting. Or the CEO of any major corporation.

You know this isn't proof - this isn't even good research. This is actually kind of intellectually lazy as far as that goes. I do, however, have an interesting and relevant link to this in just a moment, at any rate.

For all I hear about Sarkozy and Chirac, the impression I get is yes, they do form close friendships with many other world leaders, with a few exceptions.

"The impression" you get. That's not evidence, that's you surmising much as you have been. It's not to say that I automatically doubt everything you say, but it is difficult to intelligently reason when you have yet to provide evidence for any of your biggest claims, which is kind of frustrating. I'm telling you directly the kinds of things that would help convince me of your point - offer me unbiased, well-researched evidence from reputable sources, not self-made thought experiments or things that you've guessed. If you don't have any or don't want to go look, then it'd be great if you'd tell me that, too.

Why aren't jobs a priority in this country? It's American's number one request. But that isn't getting heard, somehow.

Why?

They do not personally encounter the problem of joblessness. They don't know homeless people. They don't know people who risk homelessness. The people who know these people aren't a majority of those who make decisions for this country, or other countries.

Or we have a deadlocked, impotent Congress. Or we have an idiotic population who continually votes in the same people over and over again and refuses to get behind an actual intellectual. Or we have a population who, even if given the chance, would still probably elect a total dunce because we believe in the inherent "wisdom" of the common man rather than people who are educated in relevant areas. Or we have a president who just tried to implement a job creation plan that got effectively skullfucked by the GOP. Or we have been struggling to create more jobs, but the economy is stalling because consumer confidence has a lot to do with which direction things go. Or we are still stuck under the idea of trickle-down economics.

President Obama has apparently written personal checks and done favors to average people before. Is that close enough to your idea of a social circle, by whatever vague definition? You're eager to assert your conclusion as the One Thing, but there are a thousand other factors happening at the same time and, curiously, signs that directly contradict you.

Edit: In the same vein of your comparison, you said they were "similar" but never said how. If you're also claiming that they aren't alike in the sense that you can liken them as mass murderers that oppress their population, then your entire point of bringing up things like the Trail of Tears and co. is, as I mentioned, moot. Either you're comparing them at that level or you're not.

[elone]

The solution to bad government lies in our Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Just a thought, we may be getting there, slowly but surely.

[adeleturner]

I mentioned to a friend that I didn't really know what it was that the OWS people were all about and he invited me to a local Occupy Movement (I guess that's what they are called) that was marching from the college campus to a Bank of America.  There were only about twenty people there, and I got into a few constructive discussions.  I don't know how representative these people were, but the didn't seem to be aware of the existence of inflation (one honestly proposed raising the minimum wage to $25 per hour), or the fact that the economy is not a zero-sum game.  After a few hours, and a wonderful conversation about corporate personhood, a guy showed up in a Che Guevara shirt.  I lost my ability to debate maturely.

[RubySlippers]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57317400/1-in-15-americans-now-rank-as-poorest-poor/

Here is the real issue most of these protestors to most of we who are poor, have it good in comparison. For all the protesting and whining they seem to overlook a clear fact 1 in 15 Americans are living at UNDER HALF the Federal Poverty line and that is stark isn't it. So what good are these protests going to do for this group or those lucky ones in ordinary poverty?

[Vekseid]

This is still incredibly weak and still lacks support that I've asked for. You keep dodging with vague terminology and vague quantifiers. "same companies and organizations" -- okay, who? And what has been the direct result of that? Are there any atrocious acts that have come from those deals, or are we grasping at connections here? Besides that, wouldn't the companies they deal with be more of a concern to you as opposed to a direct fault of one of our presidents for necessarily dealing with them? Again -- simply linking the people they have in common Venn diagram-style is really not making a point. It sounds a bit like a Glenn Beck teaching moment.

Researching everyone's entire social spheres is not something I have time for. Looking at Mubarak, Mubarak's son Gabal Mubarak worked for Bank of America as an executive. His brother is much more low key and little information is available on him.

Do I need to point out how much banks are a part of Obama's donor base?

That's specific, a broader view is described in the Economist:

America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

Emphasis added.

You still haven't demonstrated tangible evidence of A) solid links and B) their direct repercussions.

I have pointed out their direct repercussions. Humans can only keep track of so many relationships, I didn't really think this needed citing, it falls under 'patently obvious' though yes, there have been people who have tried to make more quantitative studies.

You are lumping quite a few different situations together under the same umbrella. Nobody here is arguing that any amount of death is 'okay', but it's dishonest to pretend that all casualties of war are weighed equally and mean the same thing and came about under the same circumstances. It's dishonest to say that ordering your military on your own protesting civilians is exactly the same as ordering NATO to assist in liberating a country and then accidentally catching civilians in a drone strike.

I can't believe you just walked into an Operation Iraqi Liberation line. How is killing Iraqis for cheap oil better than killing Americans for cheap coal? Claiming it was about liberating the people of Iraq or stopping WMDs was a lie on its face.

If it was about liberation, why are we still there? The Arab Spring did spread to Iraq, you know.

And I was not just referring to combat deaths, but also those deaths due to sanctions.

Are some deaths unfair? Sure they are, and we should always take steps to reduce those numbers, but I would be surprised to ever see them go down to zero so long as there are wars in the world. War is inherently unfair - nobody has to win. Even so, if I can just refer back to your first quotation up there, if you're not directly comparing the actions of the two, then none of this is relevant to what we're talking about anyway and there is no need for either of us to talk about it - so either it is or isn't relevant, you need to decide.

You seem to have this notion that war is more noble, for some reason. Or at least seem to think that I would agree with it. O.I.F. was nothing but war profiteering.

Interestingly, you previously insinuated that presidents who were around before the last 20-30 years or so were apparently "more in touch" with "the American people". You seemed to insinuate that those presidents were somehow better, and yet you are citing incidences from eras like those of the Spanish-American War? This is really starting to get off-topic, I think.

I can't believe you'd never heard of this era being described as the new gilded age. I was referring, of course, to FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and even Nixon until Lewis Powell's crusade, which is a major part of what OWS is protesting now, even if few, currently, know of the genesis of the class warfare that has been waged on us since before we were born.

I don't really care to debate against blatant appeals to emotion, thank you.

It isn't intended to be one. It's a reference to your capacity for multiple concerns as a human being.

You know this isn't proof - this isn't even good research. This is actually kind of intellectually lazy as far as that goes. I do, however, have an interesting and relevant link to this in just a moment, at any rate.

You seem to think that my time is unlimited. No.

"The impression" you get. That's not evidence, that's you surmising much as you have been. It's not to say that I automatically doubt everything you say, but it is difficult to intelligently reason when you have yet to provide evidence for any of your biggest claims, which is kind of frustrating. I'm telling you directly the kinds of things that would help convince me of your point - offer me unbiased, well-researched evidence from reputable sources, not self-made thought experiments or things that you've guessed. If you don't have any or don't want to go look, then it'd be great if you'd tell me that, too.

It has to do with their treatment of Germany. I tried to find the specific link but couldn't in time. Regardless, it's rather immaterial.

Or we have a deadlocked, impotent Congress. Or we have an idiotic population who continually votes in the same people over and over again and refuses to get behind an actual intellectual. Or we have a population who, even if given the chance, would still probably elect a total dunce because we believe in the inherent "wisdom" of the common man rather than people who are educated in relevant areas. Or we have a president who just tried to implement a job creation plan that got effectively skullfucked by the GOP. Or we have been struggling to create more jobs, but the economy is stalling because consumer confidence has a lot to do with which direction things go. Or we are still stuck under the idea of trickle-down economics.

Or Obama filled his economic team with people who already bought Austrian and Freshwater bullshit, whose claim to economic experience, save for Volcker, is rather suspect. There are others who have made far more accurate predictions than his team, hell, even Geithner a decade ago would be a better pick. He knew exactly what was going to happen in Japan, but when the same thing turns up in the US, he doesn't facilitate the solutions he proposed then. I'd love to know what chopped his balls off.

President Obama has apparently written personal checks and done favors to average people before. Is that close enough to your idea of a social circle, by whatever vague definition? You're eager to assert your conclusion as the One Thing, but there are a thousand other factors happening at the same time and, curiously, signs that directly contradict you.

I even know someone who had a phone conversation with him. I also knew people who have talked to Bob Dole and have a relative who met Clinton. The common impression has always been that they're warm people, but try to get elected without that.

That doesn't change the fact that something caused Obama to put Larry Summers (who helped to cause the economic crisis by backing bank deregulation) and Jason Furman on his team.

Edit: In the same vein of your comparison, you said they were "similar" but never said how. If you're also claiming that they aren't alike in the sense that you can liken them as mass murderers that oppress their population, then your entire point of bringing up things like the Trail of Tears and co. is, as I mentioned, moot. Either you're comparing them at that level or you're not.

It's more that it's easier to research the deaths a president has been party to than their actual social circle.

I mentioned to a friend that I didn't really know what it was that the OWS people were all about and he invited me to a local Occupy Movement (I guess that's what they are called) that was marching from the college campus to a Bank of America.  There were only about twenty people there, and I got into a few constructive discussions.  I don't know how representative these people were, but the didn't seem to be aware of the existence of inflation (one honestly proposed raising the minimum wage to $25 per hour), or the fact that the economy is not a zero-sum game.  After a few hours, and a wonderful conversation about corporate personhood, a guy showed up in a Che Guevara shirt.  I lost my ability to debate maturely.

I find the notion that inflation is some evil that has to be avoided at all costs is even worse, at this point in this country. Ideally, you want inflation to reflect the general depreciation of goods, so that people are both willing to part with their goods, meaning inflation is not so high as to sabotage faith in the currency as a medium of trade, and that people are willing to part with their currency, meaning that inflation is not so low - or even deflationary - that people hold on to their money out of the belief that it will appreciate in value. This latter case becomes self-perpetuating - the more money is held, the less money is in circulation, causing still more deflation.

The economy may not be a zero-sum game, but there can be zero sum-like situations, even if they are political constructs, and we are in fact in one right now.

An easy way to look at it is, the top 5% of the population earns 30% of the income and spends 15% of the money (I think the actual numbers were 28% and 14.3 - whatever). This means, that without any sort of growth, taxation, or reinvestment, or other redistributing mechanism, 15% of the nation's wealth gets transferred from the bottom 95% to the top 5% (actually, it's mostly going from the bottom 99% to the top .1%, with the next .9 about where they should be).

This isn't sustainable - eventually, the 'poor' don't have money to spend, anymore - this is what actually caused the crash. Around ~2006, the savings rate went negative, and basically the economy figured it out not too much later. People stopped spending because they couldn't, and things grind to a halt, causing more people to get laid off, as the wealthy aren't spending their money at the same rate.

None of this was, or is getting addressed in our current political apparatus. Until it is, or until something happens to convince those who have money to invest it en masse, it isn't going to be fixed.

[elone]

This isn't sustainable - eventually, the 'poor' don't have money to spend, anymore - this is what actually caused the crash. Around ~2006, the savings rate went negative, and basically the economy figured it out not too much later. People stopped spending because they couldn't, and things grind to a halt, causing more people to get laid off, as the wealthy aren't spending their money at the same rate.

None of this was, or is getting addressed in our current political apparatus. Until it is, or until something happens to convince those who have money to invest it en masse, it isn't going to be fixed.

I have to agree completely on this part. It seems like we are in a downward spiral. The sad part is that when people have no money to buy goods, jobs are lost and wages are stagnated or lowered adding to the inability to buy goods. In addition, prices for many good are rising: groceries, utilities, and taxes in the form of fees. None of these have any effect on the wealthy but push the middle class to poverty. Unfortunately, much of the middle class was built on manufacturing and those jobs are gone and will never return. The US, even with great productivity cannot compete with nations that have slave wages when it comes to manufacturing jobs that were once staples in our society.

I see no reason for the wealthy to invest. What will they invest in that will bring back work to the middle class? They can sit comfortably on their money for quite some time. Corporations and banks are only interested in their bottom line, and as long as they can take jobs out of this country and make money doing so they will continue. As long as banks get free money from the fed, they will put it where they can make more money. That doesn't include lending to risky small businesses and start ups.

We will soon become a nation of haves and have nots, if we are not there already.

[Noelle]

Researching everyone's entire social spheres is not something I have time for. Looking at Mubarak, Mubarak's son Gabal Mubarak worked for Bank of America as an executive. His brother is much more low key and little information is available on him.

Do I need to point out how much banks are a part of Obama's donor base?

You don't have time, but you're awfully comfortable referencing it as if it's some kind of well-established fact, when clearly it's not. Your research is a couple of anecdotes that happen to fit your narrative in the very broadest of senses, but ultimately fails to coherently link the two together. Did you read your link about Gamal Mubarak? It starts out like this:

After Hosni Mubarak’s younger son, Gamal, left his job as an executive with Bank of America in London in the mid-1990s

So no, you don't need to point out that banks contributed to Obama's political fund, but it would be nice if you could point out how the link you provided is relevant to that, considering Gamal's job with Bank of America happened neither in the correct country nor timeframe as Obama's candidacy.

I have pointed out their direct repercussions. Humans can only keep track of so many relationships, I didn't really think this needed citing, it falls under 'patently obvious' though yes, there have been people who have tried to make more quantitative studies.

A lot of things you are claiming to be 'patently obvious' really aren't. Quote to me where you provided evidence of this whole nefarious "social circle" being real and tangible, as well as where you have successfully demonstrated its repercussions. I've asked you in nearly every post now to offer your sources and only in the last post have you done so. If I'm missing something, feel free to let me know what I've overlooked and I'd be happy to give it a proper look.

I can't believe you just walked into an Operation Iraqi Liberation line. How is killing Iraqis for cheap oil better than killing Americans for cheap coal? Claiming it was about liberating the people of Iraq or stopping WMDs was a lie on its face.

Except that's not what I was referencing at all. I was referencing NATO's involvement in Libya where there was recently some investigation into claims of civilian deaths, especially so because Gaddhafi's regime were reportedly releasing false reports of civilian deaths by NATO to try and sway support.

I would also appreciate if you could cut back on the "this is obvious" and "I can't believe you think..." hyperbolic language. I'm sure it's not your intent, but it's coming across as incredibly condescending and uncivil.

You seem to think that my time is unlimited. No.

No, I "seem to think" that you are able to provide relevant research and examples when it's asked for, or let me know if you can't or won't. It's the same that would be expected of anyone else I debate with. Your example was inaccurate and I called it out as being inaccurate. If you don't have time, as you keep repeatedly bringing up here, then please don't engage in debate to this level, as it then becomes disrespectful to me and a waste of my limited time. Regardless, I will explain to you why it is inaccurate.

Your quote:

Here's an interesting challenge. Find me someone in Obama's social circle who has been unemployed and looking for work for more than a year. Or even a month. Then do the same for Mubarak before his ousting. Or the CEO of any major corporation.

This is little more than a Kevin Bacon-style assessment and not one that can be accurately completed, at that, considering I do not know who Obama knows any more than you've demonstrated that you do. Even if it could (or couldn't) be successfully linked, what relevance does it have? Does not knowing someone who has been employed for a long time mean you are incapable of making legislation that benefits those who are unemployed? Similarly, if you do know someone who has been unemployed long-term, is there a proven guarantee that you will legislate to benefit them? And if so, how is that any better than those who legislate to their own interests, such as big business? Sure, the cause might be more noble, but a puppet is still a puppet and it's hypocritical to give it a pass just because they're a puppet for your team. We should be encouraging legislation based on what will make and keep our country successful and happy in the long-term rather than who can yell the loudest or what will fix things as fast as possible regardless of how shoddy the patch job.

It's more that it's easier to research the deaths a president has been party to than their actual social circle.

Then I assert again that the idea of a social circle is incredibly unreliable and borderline conspiratorial and I'm not sure why it's being thrown around here like it's such a sure thing.

Yes, there are certainly some shady characters in Obama's team, but the thing is, we don't know why. Jumping to the conclusion or just stringing together anecdotes to prove that it's because of X or Y corruption or Z conspiracy is a fallacy, there's really no other way around it. It's an argument from ignorance. We can sit and speculate that it's possible or even probable that X or Y is going on based on certain actions, but there is no way I would bank on the idea of Obama being equatable at any serious level to Mubarak and I have yet to see convincing evidence (not anecdote) otherwise. You simply can't stress the idea of a social circle and then turn around and say you can't research it.

[Trieste]

Okay.

So the wall-of-text war needs to stop, because it is going around in circles at this point*. So you guys have two options: engage with each other in PM, or start a dialogue. Either way, please take a step back from the topic, take a breath, and have a latte.

Thank you very much.

* As an uninvolved party, it honestly looks to me like it has evolved into a debate over who is better able to find a bunch of links and then demand more links from the other person, although I know that the two of you don't mean it that way.