If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Get ready for Occupy @ part 2   (nytimes.com) divider line 430
    More: Obvious, Communications Workers of America, Occupy movement, Pike Place Market  
•       •       •

15922 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2012 at 10:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



430 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-13 04:12:02 PM

Riothamus: Rent Party: bunner: Rent Party: Then you politely excuse yourself for upsetting the state and it's thugs, and escape quietly into the night where you declare victory from the confines of your basement.

They laugh all the way to the bank.

Worked in 1969.

When the Occupy pansies are willing to stand in and take the beatings that the Birmingham people did, give me a call. Those clowns aren't even in the same league.

This

[www.theblaze.com image 620x357]

Aint this

[www.global1.youth-leader.org image 470x325]

The guys in Oakland and Miami showed some spark, but otherwise, quiescent obedience to the very same corporate state you object to is no way to run a protest, son.


So you didn't watch the videos from Cal-Berkeley or Cal-Davis?

And you didn't see that guy get shot in the head with a teargas canister and then flash-banged?


Stop selectively ignoring evidence that contradicts the media narrative.


You mean those guys in Oakland that I just said showed some spark?

Yeah, I saw that.

Do you read?
 
2012-02-13 04:13:14 PM
Nice to know that there are such quality posts I'm missing because of the ignore list, I tell you...
 
2012-02-13 04:14:08 PM

bunner: Rent Party:

This

Aint this

No argument, but at the end of the day, they sold us the trappings of hippiedom as revolution lite at Kresge's and we, and our less politically concerned teenybopper siblings bought it as fast as they could print it and you know, it was televised. If you can't hose, mace, murder wholesale and crush political awareness, tell them it's fashion and in 10 years, it will be. The cats running the show have a very large game plan at it's centuries old. We manage to notice every 20 years or so that we're getting f*cked like quarter whores on dime day and we piss and moan a bit and go home.

[torontoist.com image 640x892]


THIS.

Bread and circuses, man. Or in today's parlance, Starbucks and iPads...
 
2012-02-13 04:16:17 PM

Bob16: OWS is here to stay.

Get use to it whiners.

/ why would you ever expect to get the straight story about OWS from the NY Times ?


I can't get a straight story from occupywallstreet.org Seriously these guys lack direction.
 
2012-02-13 04:16:35 PM

ChuDogg: Debeo Summa Credo: The 1.6% now vs. 1.4% represents total spending on tertiary education, not just grants/loans. So it includes direct government funding of colleges, etc., which you seem to think has gone down greatly since the 1960s and 1970s.

At the federal level. Which would include grants, loans, etc, which as you note, have gone slightly up.

Not at the state level, which is the primary funder of public education. The federal government has never directly subsidized state colleges and universities. As previously noted, state subsidies have decreased 90%.


The link provided includes state and local spending. Here is a table that includes state spending on tertiary education

Link (new window)

Low of 1% of GDP in 1978 to now approaching 1.4% of GDP. If this data is to be believed (I didn't audit it), it would imply that state spending has gone up on post-secondary education as well.

Tuition has gone up not only at public colleges but also at private colleges. That is your issue and I have no answer for it. Why college tuition, public or private goes up 6% per year when overall inflation is 3% per year is beyond me.

I know you don't have any answers, it's because you don't have any understanding of basic economics. The answer is that previously the state directly paid for the costs of education. Now that student is the primary payee with easy access to credit to be paid back with interest. It is a poor model of funding that benefits nobody but the banks.

And the rate of inflation is more like 10-20% annually. The cost in 1969 to now, at Umass for example, inflation adjusted was about $600 in 1969. Today that is about $10,000 per semester.

It's a snowball effect, that increases more and more with every student loan that is taken out. It is also effect private schools, as we do not operate in a bubble, but in a market, which allows private schools to increase their rates as well.

But the primary mover was defunding public school education.


Honestly it appears you may have been misled regarding 'defunding of public education'. If you can debunk the data in the links I've been posting, please let me know. But they appear to be legit and point to a conclusion that education spending has been going up since the time the boomers were in school.

Also, isn't it strange that we both cited UMass independently?
 
2012-02-13 04:17:02 PM

Riothamus: And you didn't see that guy get shot in the head with a teargas canister and then flash-banged?


That guy's name was Scott Olsen, he's a Marine and Iraq War vet. And, that should have been the flash point that got occupiers to go on the offensive and stay on the offensive on every conceivable front.

Instead, even the hipsters across the bay couldn't even be arsed to break through a police barrier to march on Oakland in genuine solidarity. They shut up and marched quietly back to their camp to participate in more drum circles and totally post on their tumblr accounts about how much of an outrage it was and how they totally feel solidarity with the guys across the bay getting gassed by cops.
 
2012-02-13 04:19:59 PM

that bosnian sniper: Riothamus: And you didn't see that guy get shot in the head with a teargas canister and then flash-banged?

That guy's name was Scott Olsen, he's a Marine and Iraq War vet. And, that should have been the flash point that got occupiers to go on the offensive and stay on the offensive on every conceivable front.

Instead, even the hipsters across the bay couldn't even be arsed to break through a police barrier to march on Oakland in genuine solidarity. They shut up and marched quietly back to their camp to participate in more drum circles and totally post on their tumblr accounts about how much of an outrage it was and how they totally feel solidarity with the guys across the bay getting gassed by cops.


Because isolated incidents are going to happen. Tell me when everyone is getting teargassed and beat up by cops, not "that one guy".
 
2012-02-13 04:22:15 PM
Yep. Concern trolls, naysayers and cafeteria liberals. So many experts on social progress all in one place. How fascinating. It's practically a webinar.
 
2012-02-13 04:24:35 PM

skullkrusher: very little to do with squatting on public property for several months


trying to come off as non partisan while using partisan verbiage to describe the protesters, you should write for reason.com.
 
2012-02-13 04:24:52 PM

bunner: It's simple. If you have a few billion of anything and you shove it all up your ass while people in the streets beg for non-existent jobs, scrounge for places to live and things to eat and then pipe the rest of it to a foreign country that has a political ideology that stands for everything you say you despise, not only are you a no good, two faced hypocritical sonofab*tch, but you're useless. And you can drop the "Capitalism is Patriotic™" pose on your way to kiss Wu Den-yih's ass.


I don't think that the obvious can be stated often enough, in this case. Thank you for your truth, sir.
 
2012-02-13 04:25:40 PM

whidbey: Yep. Concern trolls, naysayers and cafeteria liberals. So many experts on social progress all in one place. How fascinating. It's practically a webinar.


Everyone is an expert on Fark. If Obama only read this site all the problems of the world would be solved.
 
2012-02-13 04:27:31 PM

Tellingthem: whidbey: Yep. Concern trolls, naysayers and cafeteria liberals. So many experts on social progress all in one place. How fascinating. It's practically a webinar.

Everyone is an expert on Fark. If Obama only read this site all the problems of the world would be solved.


He would instantly resign, turn himself in for war crimes, and then Ron Paul would automagically be crowned President. :)
 
2012-02-13 04:27:50 PM

Headso: skullkrusher: very little to do with squatting on public property for several months

trying to come off as non partisan while using partisan verbiage to describe the protesters, you should write for reason.com.


I am not non-partisan. I actually support the goals... well, at least the initial stated goals. Of course, this doesn't prevent me from characterizing what "occupying" a park actually is, namely squatting on public land.
 
2012-02-13 04:29:20 PM

bhcompy: that bosnian sniper: Riothamus: And you didn't see that guy get shot in the head with a teargas canister and then flash-banged?

That guy's name was Scott Olsen, he's a Marine and Iraq War vet. And, that should have been the flash point that got occupiers to go on the offensive and stay on the offensive on every conceivable front.

Instead, even the hipsters across the bay couldn't even be arsed to break through a police barrier to march on Oakland in genuine solidarity. They shut up and marched quietly back to their camp to participate in more drum circles and totally post on their tumblr accounts about how much of an outrage it was and how they totally feel solidarity with the guys across the bay getting gassed by cops.

Because isolated incidents are going to happen. Tell me when everyone is getting teargassed and beat up by cops, not "that one guy".


That is the entire point problem. Because the Occupy crowd tends to run home to their free speech zones when the cops tell them to, the cops don't really need to get all hard on them. And when someone does stand up, they can be sure that their Occupy friends will be right there in solidarity (on Facebook).
 
2012-02-13 04:29:55 PM

whidbey: Tellingthem: whidbey: Yep. Concern trolls, naysayers and cafeteria liberals. So many experts on social progress all in one place. How fascinating. It's practically a webinar.

Everyone is an expert on Fark. If Obama only read this site all the problems of the world would be solved.

He would instantly resign, turn himself in for war crimes, and then Ron Paul would automagically be crowned President. :)


Don't forget about the free beer and bacon for all! haha
 
2012-02-13 04:30:09 PM

that bosnian sniper: So, I put it to you again, when's talky-time finally going to be over?


When we reach redemption (new window)

From the very beginning there was a philosophy undergirding the Montgomery boycott, the philosophy of nonviolent resistance. There was always the problem of getting this method over because it didn't make sense to most of the people in the beginning. We had to use our mass meetings to explain nonviolence to a community of people who had never heard of the philosophy and in many instances were not sympathetic with it. We had meetings twice a week on Mondays and on Thursdays, and we had an institute on nonviolence and social change. We had to make it clear that nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist. It is not a method of stagnant passivity and deadening complacency. The nonviolent resister is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually.

Another thing that we had to get over was the fact that the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. This was always a cry that we had to set before people that our aim is not to defeat the white community, not to humiliate the white community, but to win the friendship of all of the persons who had perpetrated this system in the past. The end of violence or the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community. A boycott is never an end within itself. It is merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor but the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption.

Then we had to make it clear also that the nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than individuals who happen to be caught up in the system. And this is why I say from time to time that the struggle in the South is not so much the tension between white people and Negro people. The struggle is rather between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will not be a victory merely for fifty thousand Negroes. But it will be a victory for justice, a victory for good will, a victory for democracy.
 
2012-02-13 04:32:26 PM

abhorrent1: So wait, did part 1 even accomplish anything?


Yes. It got people to toss and turn in their sleep-state before rolling over and falling deeper into it.
 
2012-02-13 04:35:23 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The link provided includes state and local spending.


Really.. Because when you click the link it say "US Government spending", I didn't see where it says "US Government plus state and local spending". Please highlight where I might have missed that.

Debeo Summa Credo: If you can debunk the data in the links I've been posting, please let me know


OK. Quick and dirty here is a link on Pennsylvania only.

i43.tinypic.com
You can read the study here, and there are many more graphs that show the decline in state funding for public universities and note that this is a national trend. Unfortunately the study was limited to the last 25 years.

You appear to misinformed regarding public funding of education. But if you can find anything that notes the state level spending, not federal spending, I would be happy to take a look. As it stands now, however, it is pretty clear that multiple posts from you are flatly incorrect.


I cited Umass as my father went to lowell and likes to point out he paid $100 a semester. In today's dollars that equals $600 per semester. A quick glance at their website shows that the current rate at Umass lowell is $10,000 per semester.
 
2012-02-13 04:36:05 PM

DarnoKonrad: Unless they organize and put forth a slate of candidates advocating social justice, I don't see what the point is.


...if an OWS candidate ever sees the ballot, then you'll know the shiat has hit the fan. Because, unlike the Tea Party, which was fully embraced by one of the two appointed parties of the United States, Occupy is being fervently attacked by members of both major parties. It'd take a Perot- or Nader-esque fortune to get an Occupy member on a ballot...something the movement doesn't have...which, well, is kind of the entire point of the movement.
 
2012-02-13 04:38:11 PM

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: very little to do with squatting on public property for several months

trying to come off as non partisan while using partisan verbiage to describe the protesters, you should write for reason.com.

I am not non-partisan. I actually support the goals... well, at least the initial stated goals. Of course, this doesn't prevent me from characterizing what "occupying" a park actually is, namely squatting on public land.


Squatting is living on abandoned or unused land in an effort to become the owner of that land. It is also used as a derogatory term to describe homeless people and in the case of fox news viewers the occupy protesters. To say you are just using the correct verbiage to describe their actions is a lame copout.
 
2012-02-13 04:38:33 PM

bhcompy: Because isolated incidents are going to happen. Tell me when everyone is getting teargassed and beat up by cops, not "that one guy".


Well for one thing "everyone" in terms of the Occupy movement (the ones who stick around, anyways) already is getting gassed, sprayed and beat up.

The difference between that and "isolated incidents" is that "isolated incidents" have names and faces. Names and faces you can point to as exemplary of greater injustice that others can associate with, and use to energize and mobilize people. What happened to him sucks, but in a way Scott Olsen was the goose that laid the golden egg. By all rights, his name could and should have been on the lips of every occupier, and his name and face on every news feed in America. And the Occupy movement seriously dropped the ball on that one, and it does nothing but speak to the movement's utter, astonishing incompetence when it comes to public relations, political language and strategy, and polemic that his name wasn't household knowledge by the end of the week when it happened.
 
2012-02-13 04:42:24 PM

Aracnix: I don't think that the obvious can be stated often enough, in this case. Thank you for your truth, sir.


Actually, this has never been said with more clarity than here (->) youtube - Language NSFW.
 
2012-02-13 04:43:29 PM

Headso: Squatting is living on abandoned or unused land in an effort to become the owner of that land. It is also used as a derogatory term to describe homeless people and in the case of fox news viewers the occupy protesters. To say you are just using the correct verbiage to describe their actions is a lame copout.


the goal doesn't have to be to obtain ownership. In any case, you know what I meant.
 
2012-02-13 04:44:27 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Low of 1% of GDP in 1978 to now approaching 1.4% of GDP. If this data is to be believed (I didn't audit it), it would imply that state spending has gone up on post-secondary education as well.


So here's the problem:

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

While we may subsidize education at a higher percentage of GDP, apparently about 40% more than we used to, college costs per student have increased by a factor of ten more than goverment spending has been adjusted.
 
2012-02-13 04:46:18 PM

Epicedion: So here's the problem:

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

While we may subsidize education at a higher percentage of GDP, apparently about 40% more than we used to, college costs per student have increased by a factor of ten more than goverment spending has been adjusted.


I just noticed that it may appear than I'm confusing median income with GDP -- the 40% increase I was referring to is the 1% to 1.4% increase.
 
2012-02-13 05:01:32 PM

bunner: gblive: Until Occupy can come up with single clear list of what they are protesting, take appropriate political action, and hold protests that are not violent & destroying property - they will garner no mainstream support and remain an unwanted fringe movement disliked by over 90% of Americans.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

I'm sorry but your premises, numbers and assumptions seem to have the earmarks of something that, until recently, have been residing in somebody's colon until removed and presented.


Your nonsense is an exact example to America of what is wrong with Occupy supporters. Thank you for reminding us again of the excrement that Occupy is full of.
 
2012-02-13 05:05:16 PM

Karma Curmudgeon: When we reach redemption (new window)


Also from Dr. King (emphasis mine),

We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community...

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation...

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"...

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience...To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience...

...I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate...who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection...

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom...We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity...

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need...I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it....Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation...


Occupy is a movement of "white moderates", as Dr. King put it. There's no sense of urgency. There's no commitment. There's no decisiveness. There's no solidarity of consequence. There's no civil disobedience. There's not even resistance. And where those things do pop up, the movement abandons those who participate while talking of solidarity, urgency, and unity.
 
2012-02-13 05:06:14 PM

Epicedion: Giltric: If they majored in engineering odds are they wouldn't still be looking for a job and defaulting on their loan.

How many are defaulting on their loan cause they made an error in picking their major?

Not everyone can be an engineer. If they could, there would be no job openings in engineering, and engineering jobs would pay squat.

I'm not saying this justifies majoring in art history, but the jobs that aren't full are that way for a reason.


And occupy isnt about the horrors of getting a liberal arts degree. It's about money in politics
 
2012-02-13 05:09:34 PM

gblive: Your nonsense is an exact example to America of what is wrong with Occupy supporters. Thank you for reminding us again of the excrement that Occupy is full of.


So, you got nothing but "U R teh terristor nonsenseror and p00p!1!"
 
2012-02-13 05:24:28 PM

skullkrusher: Headso: Squatting is living on abandoned or unused land in an effort to become the owner of that land. It is also used as a derogatory term to describe homeless people and in the case of fox news viewers the occupy protesters. To say you are just using the correct verbiage to describe their actions is a lame copout.

the goal doesn't have to be to obtain ownership. In any case, you know what I meant.


squatting could also be used to describe what that dude did on the cop car.
 
2012-02-13 05:26:28 PM

ChuDogg: Debeo Summa Credo: The link provided includes state and local spending.

Really.. Because when you click the link it say "US Government spending", I didn't see where it says "US Government plus state and local spending". Please highlight where I might have missed that.


The table appears to be mislabeled. You can scroll down and see that I selected "tertiary education" and "state" (state is one of the options in the radio buttons). You can mess around with it and select a graph that you want. Pretty cool but clunky.

Debeo Summa Credo: If you can debunk the data in the links I've been posting, please let me know

OK. Quick and dirty here is a link on Pennsylvania only.

[i43.tinypic.com image 640x332]
You can read the study here, and there are many more graphs that show the decline in state funding for public universities and note that this is a national trend. Unfortunately the study was limited to the last 25 years.

You appear to misinformed regarding public funding of education. But if you can find anything that notes the state level spending, not federal spending, I would be happy to take a look. As it stands now, however, it is pretty clear that multiple posts from you are flatly incorrect.


Sorry, you're graph is stating it as a percentage of total costs. And the reason the percentage has declined is because total costs have gone up so much. State funding of tertiary education has gone up as a percentage of GDP. It hasn't kept up with overall costs because overall costs have gone up at a ridiculous level, as we've discussed.

So, I dispensed with Sgt Grumbles notion that we are being undersubsidized compared to the boomers, as overall govt spending has gone up as a percentage of GDP since the 50s and 60s. When this rationale was disputed due to military spending's contribution, I pointed out that military spending has decreased since the boomers' childhood.
Then, the goal posts were moved to education - I noted that total education spending has gone up from 4% to 6% of GDP and that tertiary education spending has gone up from 1.4% to approx 1.6% since the 70s. Then you argue that it is fact state spending on tertiary education where today's generation is being ripped off compared to the boomers. I point out that state spending has gone up as well, as a percentage of GDP.

Allow me to step in before you move the goalposts further - if govt spending as a percentage of GDP on tertiary education increases, but it goes down as a total percentage of total college funding costs, then your (and my) beef is with the colleges, not with government.
 
2012-02-13 05:28:17 PM
Woo Hoo! Here come the 99%ers again! Yay, our heroes ride again! Fark, isn't it about time all you crybabies grew up? You people have gotten beyond pathetic. "It's not fair...the 1% blah blah blah". How about giving us all a break. Hate being part of the 99%? Quit crying and do something to better yourself and get closer to being in the 1%. Oh, "The deck is stacked against us". Really? Hope the immigrants that came here years ago and made something for themselves don't hear you crying about that. They didn't whine about how everyone had it easier than them- they worked hard and enjoyed the fruits of their labor. They started with nothing and made a good life for themselves, many of them starting their own businesses that are still operating today. Not once did they piss and moan about doing people better than they were. They never cried about how unfair it was that some people were doing better than them, or that those who were better off should be brought down to their level for the sake of equality. Here's a fact- Life isn't fair people. Get used to it. We all don't get a trophy at the end of the game. Everybody is different, no matter how much you hate it. Some people end up doing better than others. Not everybody gets to be a millionaire. Sorry if you're not one of them. Don't like it? Be a grown up about it. Unless you're living in a box under an overpass, be happy with what you've got. If you want more than that, keep working and doing whatever it takes to get there. You know why the millionaires became millionaires? They did whatever it took for them to get there, not resting on their laurels and complaining about how much better everyone else was doing along the way. You whiners have made the wrong people your heroes. The Occupy clowns are definitely some great people to look up to. Riot because they think the world is unfair. Camp out for months on end, obstructing public areas, leaving them trashed when they finally leave. Chanting a mantra claiming that people above them should be brought down to their level, out of "fairness". And it doesn't help when we have a President who reinforces this behavior with his "I'm going to bring fairness back to this country" class warfare schtick. Anyone with half a brain with choose to admire people who have risen up above all odds and achieved something with their lives, and made a great living for themselves. Dammit people...grow up, quit your crying and make something of yourselves. Besides a spectacle.

Oh wait, this is Fark. Nevermind.

Bring the torches and pitchforks.
 
2012-02-13 05:31:53 PM

Epicedion: Debeo Summa Credo: Low of 1% of GDP in 1978 to now approaching 1.4% of GDP. If this data is to be believed (I didn't audit it), it would imply that state spending has gone up on post-secondary education as well.

So here's the problem:

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

While we may subsidize education at a higher percentage of GDP, apparently about 40% more than we used to, college costs per student have increased by a factor of ten more than goverment spending has been adjusted.


Yeah, exactly. The problem is with tuition going up much faster than overall inflation, not with government funding. Are colleges providing 3x better an education than they were in 1982 (which would justify the increase in costs relative to general inflation)? No. Then is it simple demand? Are too many people going to college these days? Are professors earning excessive salaries? Insurance costs? What's the reason?
 
2012-02-13 05:42:04 PM
Jumping on a proposal from Portland, Ore., groups in 34 cities have agreed to "a day of nonviolent direct action" on Feb. 29 against corporations accused of working against the public interest.

Isn't "nonviolent direct action" an oxymoron?
 
2012-02-13 05:43:11 PM

3StratMan: Woo Hoo! Here come the 99%ers again! Yay, our heroes ride again! Fark, isn't it about time all you crybabies grew up? You people have gotten beyond pathetic. "It's not fair...the 1% blah blah blah". How about giving us all a break. Hate being part of the 99%? Quit crying and do something to better yourself and get closer to being in the 1%. Oh, "The deck is stacked against us". Really? Hope the immigrants that came here years ago and made something for themselves don't hear you crying about that. They didn't whine about how everyone had it easier than them- they worked hard and enjoyed the fruits of their labor. They started with nothing and made a good life for themselves, many of them starting their own businesses that are still operating today. Not once did they piss and moan about doing people better than they were. They never cried about how unfair it was that some people were doing better than them, or that those who were better off should be brought down to their level for the sake of equality. Here's a fact- Life isn't fair people. Get used to it. We all don't get a trophy at the end of the game. Everybody is different, no matter how much you hate it. Some people end up doing better than others. Not everybody gets to be a millionaire. Sorry if you're not one of them. Don't like it? Be a grown up about it. Unless you're living in a box under an overpass, be happy with what you've got. If you want more than that, keep working and doing whatever it takes to get there. You know why the millionaires became millionaires? They did whatever it took for them to get there, not resting on their laurels and complaining about how much better everyone else was doing along the way. You whiners have made the wrong people your heroes. The Occupy clowns are definitely some great people to look up to. Riot because they think the world is unfair. Camp out for months on end, obstructing public areas, leaving them trashed when they finally leave. Chanting a mantra claiming that ...


www.visualphotos.com

"No, hon. seriously, you gotta see this."
 
2012-02-13 05:49:48 PM

3StratMan: Oh wait, this is Fark. Nevermind.

Bring the torches and pitchforks.


One Strat is all right. Two is a bit much. To not even consider a Tele for your 3rd axe is a bit monocultural IMNSHO.
 
2012-02-13 05:58:01 PM
3strat

What a long-winded way to say "I'm smugly content".
 
2012-02-13 06:26:36 PM

imontheinternet: In the end, many of the specific things that get discussed are just symptoms. The true problem in America is that there are two sets of laws. One for the rich, and one for everyone else.

 
2012-02-13 06:39:23 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Sorry, you're graph is stating it as a percentage of total costs.


Which is what I've been stating this whole time. The babyboomer generation had around 80% of public college subsidized while the current generation has about 10-20%

State funding of tertiary education has gone up as a percentage of GDP

Ok. maybe if we're talking about flat dollars perhaps. But it hasn't kept up with inflation. If they increase 1% a year but inflation increase 2%, that's a cut in the practical sense of the matter. It's like the AMT was only supposed to go after millionaires but inflation creep has a great way of fixing that problem. Nobody said the state's got togethor and made drastic sudden cuts to public services. But has tax rates declined and government spending focused on other areas slowly higher education was put on the chopping block year by year.

This is a completely disingenuous point to making in rebuttal, and really looks like a last ditch attempt now that you've been thoroughly refuted. Again, the percentage of education that is taxpayer funded has declined.


So, I dispensed with Sgt Grumbles notion that we are being undersubsidized compared to the boomers, as overall govt spending has gone up as a percentage of GDP since the 50s and 60s. When this rationale was disputed due to military spending's contribution, I pointed out that military spending has decreased since the boomers' childhood.
Then, the goal posts were moved to education


You need to learn the difference between moving the goalposts and "changing the subject". You went off an erenous rant about total government spending, when in fact, the biggest spending items are medical, social security, and defense (over half the budget). What could this possibly have to do with education subsidies? I don't know, but now your claiming to be moving the goal posts after changing the subject is hilarious.


I noted that total education spending has gone up from 4% to 6% of GDP and that tertiary education spending has gone up from 1.4% to approx 1.6% since the 70s. Then you argue that it is fact state spending on tertiary education where today's generation is being ripped off compared to the boomers. I point out that state spending has gone up as well, as a percentage of GDP.

You posted conjecture. I have no arguments that the federal government has stepped up student loan programs. What I noted is that government assistance switched from primarily state funding to individual loans. As the graph shows, this a long term trend that appears to be continuing, and might even break the whole notion of "public schools" itself. This is a primary cause of education inflation, which you've stated yourself you have no idea why that is occurring. It is basic economics when you flood a market with individual actors with easy credit. If the state's resumed their percentage of the tuition budget, previously as high as 80%, tuition increases would have stayed on par with inflation as more people would have been able to afford tuition without the necessity of obtaining loans. It is cause and effect.


I would like to see a notable source for your claim that state spending as gone up as well. Notable, as in a .edu link or similar and preferably and academic link, like mine was. It's ok if it is conjecture, there is plenty to go around, but don't live in fantasy land that you're posting irrefutable scientific facts when it is easily refuted by actual academic studies. Most of what you've posted is been posting erroneous information, linking to non authoritative sites (usgovernmentspending.com?), and using figures that have no relation to what you're even trying to argue.

Again, I just don't understand why it's so hard to admit you had it easier than kids do today. Regardless of the reasons, just by getting an education at 80% subsidy versus 20% is easier, regardless of increased costs or anything else. I know many people in the aging babyboomer population that admit they had greatly subsided education and can't fathom the loan costs for kids these days. Apparently that breaks your "I walked uphill both ways" fantasies of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps so cognitive dissonance is firmly steeped in you.
 
2012-02-13 07:11:12 PM

ChuDogg: Debeo Summa Credo: Sorry, you're graph is stating it as a percentage of total costs.

Which is what I've been stating this whole time. The babyboomer generation had around 80% of public college subsidized while the current generation has about 10-20%


Which doesn't change the fact that the government spends a higher portion of GDP on tertiary spending than it did in the boomer years. Hence, you can't complain that the boomers got more of a subsidy than you are from the governmetn. They're paying more than they did then, in real dollars.

State funding of tertiary education has gone up as a percentage of GDP

Ok. maybe if we're talking about flat dollars perhaps. But it hasn't kept up with inflation. If they increase 1% a year but inflation increase 2%, that's a cut in the practical sense of the matter. It's like the AMT was only supposed to go after millionaires but inflation creep has a great way of fixing that problem. Nobody said the state's got togethor and made drastic sudden cuts to public services. But has tax rates declined and government spending focused on other areas slowly higher education was put on the chopping block year by year.

This is a completely disingenuous point to making in rebuttal, and really looks like a last ditch attempt now that you've been thoroughly refuted. Again, the percentage of education that is taxpayer funded has declined.


No, "as a percentage of GDP" isn't flat dollars. Do you thinkg GDP is flat every year? No, it generally grows, and over time it grows faster than general inflation. Again, governemnt spends more on tertiary education, in real dollars, than they did in the boomer years.

So, I dispensed with Sgt Grumbles notion that we are being undersubsidized compared to the boomers, as overall govt spending has gone up as a percentage of GDP since the 50s and 60s. When this rationale was disputed due to military spending's contribution, I pointed out that military spending has decreased since the boomers' childhood.
Then, the goal posts were moved to education

You need to learn the difference between moving the goalposts and "changing the subject". You went off an erenous rant about total government spending, when in fact, the biggest spending items are medical, social security, and defense (over half the budget). What could this possibly have to do with education subsidies? I don't know, but now your claiming to be moving the goal posts after changing the subject is hilarious.


Talk about hilarious. Lets recap again:

"We aren't getting the subsidies the boomers did!"

Me: No, actually spending is up since the boomers were kids, as a percentage of GDP

"Well, alot of that is miltary"

Me: No, militiary spending as a percentage of GDP has declined since the cold war,

"No, we're talking about education subsidies"

Me: Oh, okay. Let's see - education has gone up from 4 to 6% of GDP since 1970.

"No, I meant college education"

Me: Oh, okay, college funding has gond up 1.4% from the 1970s to 1.6%or so now".

"No, I meant state funding of college education"

Me: Well the numbers I mentioned before included state spending, but let me see what I can do. Ah, here. State spending has gone up as well, as a percentage of GDP.

"But the percentage of total college costs born by government has gone down"

Me: Yeah, but that's not a matter of government subsidies, its a matter of colleges raising tuitions at ridiculous levels.

"That's what I was talking about all the time! SEE!!"
 
2012-02-13 07:14:49 PM

3StratMan: wall of tears


TL;DR
 
2012-02-13 07:18:31 PM
You posted conjecture. I have no arguments that the federal government has stepped up student loan programs. What I noted is that government assistance switched from primarily state funding to individual loans. As the graph shows, this a long term trend that appears to be continuing, and might even break the whole notion of "public schools" itself. This is a primary cause of education inflation, which you've stated yourself you have no idea why that is occurring. It is basic economics when you flood a market with individual actors with easy credit. If the state's resumed their percentage of the tuition budget, previously as high as 80%, tuition increases would have stayed on par with inflation as more people would have been able to afford tuition without the necessity of obtaining loans. It is cause and effect.


I would like to see a notable source for your claim that state spending as gone up as well. Notable, as in a .edu link or similar and preferably and academic link, like mine was. It's ok if it is conjecture, there is plenty to go around, but don't live in fantasy land that you're posting irrefutable scientific facts when it is easily refuted by actual academic studies. Most of what you've posted is been posting erroneous information, linking to non authoritative sites (usgovernmentspending.com?), and using figures that have no relation to what you're even trying to argue.

Again, I just don't understand why it's so hard to admit you had it easier than kids do today. Regardless of the reasons, just by getting an education at 80% subsidy versus 20% is easier, regardless of increased costs or anything else. I know many people in the aging babyboomer population that admit they had greatly subsided education and can't fathom the loan costs for kids these days. Apparently that breaks your "I walked uphill both ways" fantasies of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps so cognitive dissonance is firmly steeped in you.


C'man. Your link was a farking powerpoint presentation propaganda.

And I'm not a boomer. Graduated in the mid-90s with college debt that took about 8 years to pay off. Went to grad school part time afterward with no debt. I have no argument that college students today don't have it worse off, and as the parent of small children I have a vested interest in this problem being solved. But the problem isn't with a lack of government funding. The problems is with increased tuition. Why does UMass need to raise tuition and fees 8% per year? Where is that money going?
 
2012-02-13 07:26:58 PM

ChuDogg: would like to see a notable source for your claim that state spending as gone up as well. Notable, as in a .edu link or similar and preferably and academic link, like mine was. It's ok if it is conjecture, there is plenty to go around, but don't live in fantasy land that you're posting irrefutable scientific facts when it is easily refuted by actual academic studies. Most of what you've posted is been posting erroneous information, linking to non authoritative sites (usgovernmentspending.com?), and using figures that have no relation to what you're even trying to argue.


I'm arguing that government spending on higher education, as a percentage of GDP, has increased since the 1960s, and any arguments that the government is providing a smaller subsidy, in real dollars, for higher education are false.

And like I said, I'm not auditing the data, but the sources are linked to on the site are from census.gov. Is that notable enough or are you going to ask me to recompile state spending figures from 1965?
 
2012-02-13 07:28:21 PM
I'm glad they're so concerned with people who "OH GOD, WHY BOTHER, YOU GOT NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED".
 
2012-02-13 08:19:09 PM
i swear GenX ers can be just as entitled brats as the baby boomers.

-Funding in 1969 for a public university was $900 out of $1,000 semester tuition.

-Funding in 2012 for a public university was $1200 out of $20,000 semester tuition.

WHAT ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT???? YOU GUYS ARE GETTING MORE FUNDING THAN WE DID???? SURE I GRADUATED DURING AN UNPRECENDENTED TECH BOOM AND TALKED MY WAY INTO A JOB BY TURNING A COMPUTER ON... WHY CAN'T YALL PULL YERSELF UP BY YOUR OWN DAMN BOOTSTAPS???
 
2012-02-13 08:23:47 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: And I'm not a boomer. Graduated in the mid-90s with college debt that took about 8 years to pay off. Went to grad school part time afterward with no debt. I have no argument that college students today don't have it worse off, and as the parent of small children I have a vested interest in this problem being solved. But the problem isn't with a lack of government funding. The problems is with increased tuition. Why does UMass need to raise tuition and fees 8% per year? Where is that money going?


I've told you many times the cause of tuition inflation. The economics is sound: we went from a taxpayer direct funding method for public universities, to an individual funding method backed by government grants and loans (mostly loans). If you care about the education of your children you would 1) advocate reversing that policy or 2) emigrate to pretty much any other civilized country that has taxpayer funded education and has thus avoided our runaway tuition inflation problem.

Universities are simply rational actors in the market. Do not expect them to behave any other way, after all, that wouldn't be rational.
 
2012-02-13 08:29:20 PM

abhorrent1: So wait, did part 1 even accomplish anything?


It gave Obama a talking point. the economy sucks, so talk about tackling inequality which makes any opponent have to defend inequality, and shifts the focus away from the economic recovery.. So they put that talking pint and objective on the map.

But their sweeping changes to society and politics were always going to be pie in the sky.
 
2012-02-13 08:35:07 PM
Honestly, if you are going out of your way to discredit the Occupy movement, you are truly a useful idiot in the most definable sense. Nothing less.
 
2012-02-13 09:02:22 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-13 09:27:37 PM
Bam AND boom.
 
Displayed 50 of 430 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report