get your changes down in the next 6-8 weeks. cuz aint nobody gonna give a shiat once the holidays get here

Ichneumon: I regret to inform you that judging from most of the protest signs they carry and several hundred of the "we are the 99%" whine-sheets they've posted online, most of these crybabies don't have a farking clue about whether they're actually "getting screwed" by "Wall Street" or whether (in a vast majority of the cases) they're spoiled twits who think the world owes them a living that looks like the massive loft apartment of the kids on the "Friends" sitcom straight out of school after they've blown $90k getting a stupid degree in "Art History" or "Women's Studies".

I wouldn't generalize to the whole crowd, of course, but I was disheartened when NPR interviewed an OWS protester who had a degree from Columbia and showed up to express her concerns about crippling student loan debt.

Columbia University is the 10th most expensive school in the entire country. It's like $160000 for 4 years without room and board, in New York City. It's the college equivalent of a Bentley, except that kids are smart enough not to buy a Bentley for a first car when they're 18 and working part time at the Gap.

Going to Columbia on credit is a mistake so colossal, so obvious and so preventable that it's astonishing anyone would do so and then blame the system for their predicament afterward. Then again, if you're that bad at arithmetic, you may be equally bad at identifying cause and effect.

Not to say the system is blameless. Columbia is not supposed to cost $160000, and it didn't until very recently. University tuition has jumped by insane levels in the last 2 decades, and it's almost certainly a bubble. On top of that, kids can't buy a Bentley with minimum wage employment because a properly functioning financial system would never lend them the money; and yet we had private lenders handing out massive student loans just like they used to hand out NINJA mortgages.

8/9

Damn trick questions

Sabyen91: Ichneumon: [No, kid, "the baggers" (what are you, twelve?) didn't cause the downgrade]

Bzzt.

Oh dear, I caused Sabyen91's brain to short-circuit.

Can someone please go into the server room, reset the breakers, and reboot him?

I'm not sure this is a real criticism. If you take everyone who voted in 2010 and gave them a similar quiz, most would fail. In general people from all areas of the political spectrum seem to think the president has far more power than he actually does, most don't have a clue what the fed is, most.

Hell most people don't even really know what money is or what a bank is.

OgreMagi: thisisyourbrainonFark: OgreMagi: Wow, a substantial number of those people think the tax rate on dividends and capital gains should be 100%. I can't think of a quicker way to completely destroy the economy.

I can: Link (new window)

Nope. 100% capital gains tax would be faster. It would immediately destroy the stock market, all pensions, and businesses could no longer raise money to expand via a stock offering.



Businesses are hoarding money, few are expanding. If they are it's in China. And nearby are Thai sticks.
Also, didn't you ever protest anything? I didn't protest when I was picking coffee beans in Guatemala.

Do you really expect me to believe the following three things from their "results?"

1) What is the top marginal income tax rate for the richest 1 percent? I'm supposed to believe that 2% responded "I know a whole farking family of billionaires, and not one of them pays anything." If you know a whole family of billionaires, then you're in the 1%. Why would you be down there protesting against yourself?

2) Who is Elizabeth Warren? I'm supposed to believe that 10% not only answered "Warren Buffett's wife," but did so in a quizzical manner? Yeah, it makes sense that since her last name is Warren she would be married to a man who's first name is Warren. That's how family names work, right?

3) But many wealthy filers pay only 15 percent on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains. What should it be? I'm supposed to believe that 6% responded that it should be taxed at 100%? I'm supposed to buy that 6% of these people want to erase any motive to make any long term financial investment, or any fixed income investment (bonds).

I'm not too familiar with New York Magazine. Is it owned by NewsCorp? It's gotta be if they assume their readers are stupid enough to buy these "results" as legit.

newton: jake3_14: TFA has only 9 questions. You and the OWSers both fail.

Well when shown all 50 questions they looked kinda smart, so we chose 8 'what do you knows' and an opinion question.

Also, for the last question... What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military? Good thing they used 2010 data. I hope they said in 2010 on the poll.

Because the entire previous decade looked like this...
[www.warresisters.org image 391x390]
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds - such as Social Security - that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

One thing that the charts often get wrong - what the government lists as "military spending" usually excludes pensions, to get their numbers lower.

diaphoresis: thisisyourbrainonFark: diaphoresis: zobear: What is your favorite color?

Belgian Waffle

Pick a side.

I did. Your failure to recognize it is not my fault...

Let me break it down for you tho: Neither Red nor Blue. Somewhere in the middle

Color me moderate!

SweetSaws: What does the government spend more on? Thought it was military

It is. The quiz is lying. Enormous amounts of military spending are kept out of the official federal budget numbers. 20% is a completely bullshiat number. It doesn't include nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, or production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount carefully relegated to one of the other quiz choices), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. It also doesn't include DHS, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, or intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

These expenditures add up to about 1.4 Trillion, or more than twice the official "defense budget" the quiz was pushing.

Here is a pop quiz.

Putting aside one acting chief of staff, President Obama has had TWO Chiefs of Staff.

Please identify the industry in which those two Chiefs of Staff have made combined in excess of $20 million:
1. Banking
2. Investment Banking
3. Being a Political insider
4. all of the above.

/the correct answer is 4. Thanks for playing!

Get the banker out of the Obama White House

I sound fat:
/I hope this article is BS... I hope 94 percent of these kids dont think we spend more on the military than we do on social services and pensions. If that IS accurate they are TOTALLY getting screwed paying this much for college

To all those lambasting the protesters for not knowing this, the way the fact is always presented is that the military takes the largest chunk of the discretionary government budget. The survey left "discretionary" off, but it's misleading to do so; most of the money that goes into paying for SS is collected via the payroll tax and is set aside for this purpose.

Furthermore, most people don't parse survey questions like lawyers--if you've heard over and over that the largest chunk of discretionary government spending goes to the military, and then someone asks you the same question, but without the "discretionary", you might assume that they're simply being lazy with words themselves unless they specifically state that they mean all discretionary and mandatory expenditures.

archichris: Ah so you are telling me that wealthy families DO NOT establish trust funds for their children at birth in their childrens names that are sheltered from taxes and which grow for the kids entire life and turn into a nice livable fortune?

Seriously that is your claim? That there are not Trust Fund brats in america?

Shiat, If I had a free $500k when my kids were born I would have chucked it into a trust fund in half a second.

Which is a way of saying....which would you rather have for your kid?

1- a promise from the government that they will make him eligible for full welfare and public education should he need it.

2- or $500k in a trust fund that pays for all his expenses till age 24(if he attends college.) Then repays the public, leaving him the balance of the accrued interest?

Answer the question or im done talking to you.

YOU are done with ME? lol...

Ok, here you go:

Take your 500k. Invest it in a nicely diversified portfolio, so as to maximize growth while preserving principal and current liquidity. For simplicity, we'll pretend that you spend zero dollars until the whole amount is paid out - age 24 in your example.

Such a portfolio might return 7% pretax, if you have good management. Then you pay taxes on turnover and dividends/interest - let's say that takes you down to 6% post-tax return, over 24 years.

And then there is inflation. Let's say 3% average. That leaves you with an effective return of 3%/year.

Then apply math: $500k at 3% over 24 years ... ... ... $1,016,397 in today dollars.

Wow. With that fortune in hand, your kid is sure to retire immediately.

NewportBarGuy: When the only way to get a decent paying job is to have a goddamn piece of paper...

The ONLY way? Really? NOBODY without a degree is making good money? Nobody? Really?

/motivation and an alarm clock will get you a lot farther than a PhD and a defeatist attitude.

halfof33: Here is a pop quiz.

Putting aside one acting chief of staff, President Obama has had TWO Chiefs of Staff.

Please identify the industry in which those two Chiefs of Staff have made combined in excess of $20 million:
1. Banking
2. Investment Banking
3. Being a Political insider
4. all of the above.

/the correct answer is 4. Thanks for playing!

Get the banker out of the Obama White House

JeaSUS FARKING christ. Here, half, for you:

Ok, so I got every single one right (aside from the "there's no answer lol!" question), including knowing that the top marginal tax rate is 35% without that being a specific option. I still think that corporations and lobbyists have far too much influence on our political process. What now, New Yorker? And what the fark do most of those questions have to do with anything?

Sabyen91: And you STILL say the S&P didn't downgrade because the teabaggers threatened default.

Wow, you are SUCH a stuck record.

Let me type this out slowly so that you can keep up...

The "teabaggers" didn't "threaten default". They said, "well crap, here we are again, the government has failed to live within its means and has to raise its debt ceiling AGAIN (and again, and again, and again), so soon after the last time. Fine, we know as well as you do that at the moment there's no choice but to do so, but tell you what, in the hopes of making this the last one for a while (ideally the last one, period), we're making our vote to do so contingent on you guys doing the responsible thing and agreeing to cut back a bit (ABOUT ONE PERCENT!) on the "spending-like-drunken-sailors" act, m'kay?"

Then the Democrats in the Senate threw a shiat-fit and falsely claimed the Tea Party *wanted* America to crash and burn.

It's like your brother agreeing to lend you (yet) another $5000 when you've maxed your credit cards, but only with the reasonable proviso that you shape up a bit and agree to stop spending $200 a week on cocaine. ...at which point you scream, "YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD, DO YOU *WANT* ME TO MISS A CREDIT CARD PAYMENT AND DESTROY MY CREDIT RATING?????!?!?!????!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?" [/DramaQueen]

The "teabaggers" are your responsible brother. You and your favorite political party are the irresponsible douchebags.

I hope this clears things up for you.

diaphoresis: iollow: One thing that the charts often get wrong - what the government lists as "military spending" usually excludes pensions, to get their numbers lower.

To be fair, wouldn't that actually BE considered pensions? I know it's military families it's going to, but Fed worker's pensions are considered under pensions.

It's late.. did that make sense?

It makes sense, I guess it depends on how you want to define it. To me, it's part of the cost of running the military, just like a cop's pension is part of the cost of running a police department.

I guess as far as voters are concerned, when you want more tax money for something, they should know where it will be spent, and "for pensions' isn't as accurate as "for this sector".

cherub_daemon: Furthermore, most people don't parse survey questions like lawyers--if you've heard over and over that the largest chunk of discretionary government spending goes to the military, and then someone asks you the same question, but without the "discretionary", you might assume that they're simply being lazy with words themselves unless they specifically state that they mean all discretionary and mandatory expenditures.

Also, you can dissemble by quoting the base DOD budget number, instead of including all of the actual military spending done by other departments. You can also count military pensions in one of the categories you're trying to cherry pick to be larger than that budget. Oh and don't forget to ignore the interest on the debt from previous wars.

OgreMagi: I bet there would be a major bump in the economic outlook if Obama announced he would not seek a second term, even before knowing who the Democrat front runner will be.

Believe it. There are some hardcore Marxists in that crowd. To them, private wealth is something that is to be taken for the better of the collective (those in charge).

You're speaking volumes, my friend.
Again:
"Some will be confused, sure, maybe ridiculous; but many have already shown themselves to be, whether ultimately right or wrong, informed, smart, and serious. Why summarily 'oppose' them?" he asked. "Why not, say, engage them in conversation? There's no good reason to suspend criticism about Occupy Wall Street, or necessarily to buy into any one of its zillion messages; but there's no good reason, either, just to pick our favorite things to hate ... and then tell ourselves that the whole multifaceted, rapidly changing movement must be those things writ large."

Link (new window)

Ichneumon: The "teabaggers" didn't "threaten default". They said, "well crap, here we are again, the government has failed to live within its means and has to raise its debt ceiling AGAIN (and again, and again, and again), so soon after the last time. Fine, we know as well as you do that at the moment there's no choice but to do so, but tell you what, in the hopes of making this the last one for a while (ideally the last one, period), we're making our vote to do so contingent on you guys doing the responsible thing and agreeing to cut back a bit (ABOUT ONE PERCENT!) on the "spending-like-drunken-sailors" act, m'kay?"

thisisyourbrainonFark: JeaSUS FARKING christ. Here, half, for you:

Hey, if there was something erroneous in the forgoing post, I am certainly happy to correct it.

Rahm Emmanuel: Investment banker with Wasserstein;
Bill Daley: Head of Midwest Operations, JP Morgan Chase.

I knew most of the questions but I will say that it is not required. Did most of the French know what about the government when they did their revolution? I sincerely doubt it. What matters more is when the people know innately that something is seriously wrong and they are being treated like dirt. The continued attempts by the affluent to cause harm to the nation as a whole and to the people directly needs to end.

Sort of irrelevant. The OWS has identified a problem. Whether or not they understand it well enough to suggest a reasonable solution is kind of beside the point.

cuzsis: Yes, it would be nice if we all had a background in medicine, car repair and economics. The fact is, except for a very rudimentary understanding, most people don't. That is why we hire professionals. And that is why it is such a big farking ethics violation when those "professionals" throw them under the proverbial bus to make a buck.


I'm not buying this. You need a background in medicine to avoid drug interactions, and you need a background in car repair to know if a mechanic really replaced your serpentine belt. However, you don't need any background in economics to know if you can afford a $1000 monthly payment.

Bankers don't prescribe loans the way doctors prescribe medicine. You go to a bank to ask for a loan; it's not like people just went to a bank for an annual checkup and were told to borrow money, unable to tell if they could afford the loan despite knowing how much money they make and knowing how much the payment is and knowing how to compare two numbers.

This song/video sums things up nicely.

This is why we fight. (new window)

redwards29a: Sort of irrelevant. The OWS has identified a problem. Whether or not they understand it well enough to suggest a reasonable solution is kind of beside the point.

Wait, so if I realize my car isn't running correctly and needs some work, then I should be able to take it to a mechanic without being ridiculed because my dumbass doesn't know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it? I gotta find a new mechanic.

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Do you really expect me to believe the following three things from their "results?"

1) What is the top marginal income tax rate for the richest 1 percent? I'm supposed to believe that 2% responded "I know a whole farking family of billionaires, and not one of them pays anything." If you know a whole family of billionaires, then you're in the 1%. Why would you be down there protesting against yourself?

2) Who is Elizabeth Warren? I'm supposed to believe that 10% not only answered "Warren Buffett's wife," but did so in a quizzical manner? Yeah, it makes sense that since her last name is Warren she would be married to a man who's first name is Warren. That's how family names work, right?

3) But many wealthy filers pay only 15 percent on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains. What should it be? I'm supposed to believe that 6% responded that it should be taxed at 100%? I'm supposed to buy that 6% of these people want to erase any motive to make any long term financial investment, or any fixed income investment (bonds).

I'm not too familiar with New York Magazine. Is it owned by NewsCorp? It's gotta be if they assume their readers are stupid enough to buy these "results" as legit.

To be fair, if 1 person answered that, its 2 percent. 50 people participated.

OgreMagi: That's straight out of the Evil Overlord Handbook. Have a five year old child as one of your advisers. If his reaction to a plan is "that's stupid", toss out the plan. You don't actually expect the child to come up with a plan, just point out the stupid. In other words, the OWS are a bunch of five year old children.

Also out of the Evil Overlord handbook:

Shoot the adviser that submitted the plan that the 5-year-old could see through.

Congressmen, uber-rich, and stock brokers... up against the wall!

halfof33: thisisyourbrainonFark: JeaSUS FARKING christ. Here, half, for you:

Hey, if there was something erroneous in the forgoing post, I am certainly happy to correct it.

Rahm Emmanuel: Investment banker with Wasserstein;
Bill Daley: Head of Midwest Operations, JP Morgan Chase.

Well, you're right, you caught me there, dead to rights and red-handed.
One question: Did you know some of President Obama's staff have experience in the financial sector? Get the bankers out of the White House, FTW!!!1!11!

Nabb1: So, is this one of those "Forgive student loans" deals? Because I'm not buying. Let's face facts: college is not a birth right, and it's not for everyone. Some people would be better suited learning a skilled trade. I push paper for a living. I don't make or build a damn thing. We need to be a nation that makes and builds things again.

Nope, but it is one of those "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" deals. Make student loan debt dischargable and I bet we see education costs drop and the lenders start actually using some common sense.

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Rabbitgod

Fark the debate, if you mean the crap you see on TV or get from conservtard radio, candidates and pundits on both sides pull numbers out of their asses with shocking frequency.

What I want to know is whether active/veteran health care and pensions lumped in with health care and pensions, or military? in this questionnaire. Because I'm pretty sure that the right answer to this question depends on where you lump those funds into.

Do you know the answer to my question? If you do how? Did the participants know? If they asked the surveyor did they know?

Oh I have a great idea...
Let's cut funding to schools, fill the airways with crap to keep people entertained and not informed. "Oh it will cure our budget woes to defund NPR and public services that inform the people and protect the environment." Then deregulate business, pass laws and acts that screw the people. Pass laws to "keep people safe from terrorism" while stripping them of their own liberties and freedom of speech. THEN when people rise up, mock them for their ignorance that YOU helped create. Also be able to arrest them on trumped up charges. Great idea Stalin.
If you really cared about this country's Bill of Rights, or even the American Revolution, you MUST stand with the protesters, even if you don't believe in what they are protesting.