Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[SK in CV]

[quote=eavesdropper]
2. or if it’s because there’s a distinct possibility that he really believes it, and that, in his fertile mind, it makes absolute sense. Which would explain a lot of things about Mr. Ryan.[/quote]

Ryan is their best and their brightest. Sadly, and obviously, he is not near as smart as Republican leadership tells him he is.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]wow eaves, beautiful.[/quote]

I second that …. very well said, eaves!

[Anonymous]

[quote=eavesdropper]KSM, you need to go back in the history books to a time long before the Civil Rights Movement. The late 19th century was a time during which a very few individuals held virtually all of the wealth and power. For most of them, it was never enough. While maintaining a sympathetic public facade, they maintained employees whose jobs consisted of finding and enforcing ways to increase a worker’s utter dependence upon his or her job.[/quote]

I grew up in a coal mining town. In one area where we used to play in the “woods” there was the remains of an old wall and steel fence. At one time in the late 19th century, the mine-workers were not permitted to leave the town without permission. The entire town was fenced off and there was an armed guard at the gate. The reason that the mining company could “legally” treat employees like prisoners is because the employees were indebted to the company. The company paid them in “script” (private currency) that could only be used at the company store. The company didn’t pay employees enough to survive, but it would generously extend credit.

Ever hear the old song: “Load sixteen tons and what do you get…” ?

Yeah, mountaintop removal sucks, but life in coal country was once far worse. Things got better – although mining was always brutal work – but now the underground mines are all gone (some of them are still burning and collapsing though!)

The unions that rescued the miners and steelworkers eventually were the cause of their ultimate demise as workers demanded more and labor costs overwhelmed the industries.

Today, without surface mining, there would be no economy at all. It’s a tough dilemma.

[quote]While many today promote a hazy nostalgic vision of the benevolent factory or mine owner taking care of his workers, and church-based groups taking in the less-fortunate, the actual picture was horrifying […][/quote]

Yes but there was no Fed and we were on a gold/silver standard, so things must have been wonderful. 😉

[quote]Admittedly, there are many today who have unrealistic expectations […][/quote]

In the aggregate, life today is much better than it ever has been, certainly much better than a century ago. The long-term trend is very positive. However there are indications the pace of progress is slowing, and perhaps regressing in some aspects.

Still, I’d rather have student loans than black lung.

OWS needs to focus on realistic and meaningful issues: financial regulations, consumer protections, accountability of politicians and corporate influence on politics. We don’t need to throw out the whole system – it just needs to be repaired in some areas.

If the OWS movement can direct focus toward specific, meaningful policy changes – without going off the dramatic deep end first – then they will have done some good. I’d say there’s an even chance they will make it happen.

[Anonymous]

[quote=eavesdropper]The first Boomers didn’t turn 65 until January 2010. Tell me again how the retirement of those rich, avaricious Baby Boomers is responsible for income inequality?[/quote]

Well, I think the rich ones retired well before age 65. I know plenty that have been retired for more than a decade.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper]The first Boomers didn’t turn 65 until January 2010. Tell me again how the retirement of those rich, avaricious Baby Boomers is responsible for income inequality?[/quote]

Again, many thanks for another eloquent post!

But “boomers” (as WE ARE, eaves :=0) first turned 65 in January 2011.

As can be seen by the birth rate chart, the “birth boom” of the post–World War II period is, in a way, as much or more defined by the birth dearths that preceded and followed it, than by any exceptionally high fertility rate. Comparing birth rates from 1946 to 1964 with the rates, say, prior to World War I, the post–World War II rates are much lower, though they are high in comparison to the time periods immediately preceding and following 1946 – 1964.

The exact beginning and end of the baby boom can be debated. In the United States, demographers usually use 1946 to 1964 . . .

(emphasis added)

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_baby_boom

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=eavesdropper]The first Boomers didn’t turn 65 until January 2010. Tell me again how the retirement of those rich, avaricious Baby Boomers is responsible for income inequality?[/quote]

Well, I think the rich ones retired well before age 65. I know plenty that have been retired for more than a decade.[/quote]

How do you define “rich?” And, if you don’t mind my asking, how old are YOU, pri_dk? Age range, if you wish to be coy …

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]…Ever hear the old song: “Load sixteen tons and what do you get…” ?…[/quote]

IIRC, “Another year older and deeper in debt…”

If I appear to be “pro-union” on this board, in actuality, I’m not … entirely …

It’s complicated… to the nth degree …

[paramount]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]…Ever hear the old song: “Load sixteen tons and what do you get…” ?…[/quote]

IIRC, “Another year older and deeper in debt…”

If I appear to be “pro-union” on this board, in actuality, I’m not … entirely …

It’s complicated… to the nth degree …[/quote]

Let me take a guess though – you’re pro-union when it comes to the SuperHumans (gov’t workers)?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl][quote=pri_dk]…Ever hear the old song: “Load sixteen tons and what do you get…” ?…[/quote]

IIRC, “Another year older and deeper in debt…”

If I appear to be “pro-union” on this board, in actuality, I’m not … entirely …

It’s complicated… to the nth degree …[/quote]

Let me take a guess though – you’re pro-union when it comes to the SuperHumans (gov’t workers)?[/quote]

Actually … it depends upon the union in question …

[Arraya]

Unions were an emergent social response to bitterly resisted 19th century capitalism. Unions and the turn of the century labor movement actually put a humane face on capitalism known as the welfare state.

The only culprit to today’s issues is the system itself. It will keep on concentrating wealth and disenfranchising people until social forces overturn it. It’s systemic

http://davidharvey.org/2011/10/rebels-on-the-street-the-party-of-wall-street-meets-its-nemesis/

The Party of Wall Street has one universal principle of rule: that there shall be no serious challenge to the absolute power of money to rule absolutely. And that power is to be exercised with one objective. Those possessed of money power shall not only be privileged to accumulate wealth endlessly at will, but they shall have the right to inherit the earth, taking either direct or indirect dominion not only of the land and all the resources and productive capacities that reside therein, but also assume absolute command, directly or indirectly, over the labor and creative potentialities of all those others it needs. The rest of humanity shall be deemed disposable.

These principles and practices do not arise out of individual greed, short-sightedness or mere malfeasance (although all of these are plentifully to be found). These principles have been carved into the body politic of our world through the collective will of a capitalist class animated by the coercive laws of competition. If my lobbying group spends less than yours then I will get less in the way of favors. If this jurisdiction spends on people’s needs it shall be deemed uncompetitive.

Many decent people are locked into the embrace of a system that is rotten to the core. If they are to earn even a reasonable living they have no other job option except to give the devil his due: they are only “following orders,” as Eichmann famously claimed, “doing what the system demands” as others now put it, in acceding to the barbarous and immoral principles and practices of the Party of Wall Street. The coercive laws of competition force us all, to some degree of other, to obey the rules of this ruthless and uncaring system. The problem is systemic not individual.

http://www.iwallerstein.com/fantastic-success-occupy-wall-street/

Even if the Occupy Wall Street movement were to begin to peter out because of exhaustion or repression, it has already succeeded and will leave a lasting legacy, just as the uprisings of 1968 did. The United States will have changed, and in a positive direction. As the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” A new and better world-system, a new and better United States, is a task that requires repeated effort by repeated generations. But another world is indeed possible (albeit not inevitable). And we can make a difference. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference, a big difference.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/

Welcome to the revolution. Our elites have exposed their hand. They have nothing to offer. They can destroy but they cannot build. They can repress but they cannot lead. They can steal but they cannot share. They can talk but they cannot speak. They are as dead and useless to us as the water-soaked books, tents, sleeping bags, suitcases, food boxes and clothes that were tossed by sanitation workers Tuesday morning into garbage trucks in New York City. They have no ideas, no plans and no vision for the future

.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV]wow eaves, beautiful.[/quote]

Second that.

You rock, Eavesdropper! Thank you!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=eavesdropper]The first Boomers didn’t turn 65 until January 2010. Tell me again how the retirement of those rich, avaricious Baby Boomers is responsible for income inequality?[/quote]

Well, I think the rich ones retired well before age 65. I know plenty that have been retired for more than a decade.[/quote]

So do I. But they weren’t able to collect SS retirement, which is the point I was trying to make. Paul Ryan (and possibly many of the Republican congress who seem to see him as their version of Moses) would like to blame the retirement of boomers as the reason for the shift of “entitlement” program payments from the lowest economic group to those “wealthy” older people. Aside from all his other flawed logic, there’s that pesky issue of exactly how many boomers QUALIFIED to draw SS retirement payments during the period in question. Most SS recipients wait until age 65 to start drawing, but one can draw smaller payments by age 62.

(1) The earliest boomers turned 62 in January 2008 (THANK YOU, BG!!!)

(2) The data covers the period from 1979 to 2007.

Therefore, the Boomers can’t be blamed for the shift in inequality demonstrated by this data.

I can’t believe that Paul Ryan is trying to take on older Americans. It’s obvious (at least to a few people) that he’s not terribly bright. But, man!! Someone needs to explain to him and his pals that he’s not playing nice with the group that
a) votes the most (by far!)
b) contributes the most money to political campaigns

What’s even more ironic is that Paul Ryan is precisely the kind of candidate that older ultraconservative folks like: good-looking, dark haired, square-jawed, white ….There will be many who will stick by him, no matter how far he strays (case in point: Herman Cain), but if they’re given a choice, they’ll dump him.

The whole thing is so laughable……but, in a society that would rather have a scapegoat so that they don’t have to look in the mirror, it’s just the kind of thing that will catch on. Recent studies that point out the large amounts of “wealth” that older Americans have compared to younger are fueling this.

a) Journalists and pundits aren’t reporting or interpreting the data correctly;

b) the reports say “older Americans” not “boomers”. BIG difference. HUUUGE!

c) The “wealth” they talk about includes equity in older Americans’ homes. Aside from the fact that, in the current market conditions, it is virtually impossible to ascertain accurate info on home values, there is also the issue that many seniors aren’t able to sell their homes to get at that value. Yes, it should be included, but it should also be clearly spelled out that the “wealth” of most older Americans is not piles of cash and liquid investments. There are still a tremendous number of seniors living well below the poverty line, and because they own a home (it could be – and often is – a tumbledown shack that they couldn’t get rid of if they tried, and that they can’t afford to heat or repair), they don’t qualify for ANY assistance at all. In the meantime, 15 year-olds who’ve never worked a day in their lives (and who, themselves, are the children of parents who haven’t ever worked) have children and qualify for all sorts of federal and state aid.

d) And that illustrates another point: Many older Americans have “wealth” (in reality, “wealth” = no debt, a paid-off mortgage, and 35 bucks in the bank) because they’ve been much more prudent in their spending habits. Most realized that there was an important distinction between being able to *BUY* something, and being able to *AFFORD* it, and they have the self-discipline to keep from crossing that line. That went away in the mid-90s, when the banks were trying to lend out all that cheap money the Fed was giving them, and sold the idea to the poor and the middle-class that they weren’t poor and middle-class.

And the problem is that they’re still not accepting of the idea that they’re poor and middle-class. They’re in a temporary cash-crunch because the “boomers” stole all their money when they weren’t looking.

[Anonymous]

BG,

Here’s a little debate tip:

Focus on the facts and logic, not the personal characteristics of the person making the argument.

As for your question: It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out about how old I am from the information I have provided in this thread alone.

[Anonymous]

I’m not a fan Paul Ryan. I think he’s a jerk. But eaves, your arguments – once one looks past the eloquence – really don’t make much sense.

[quote=eavesdropper]
So do I. But they weren’t able to collect SS retirement, which is the point I was trying to make. [/quote]

You were talking about SS? (even though you never actually mentioned it.) Ok, let’s talk about SS.

Here’s a little anecdote (yeah, I know I said I wouldn’t use anecdotes):

My in-laws immigrated to this country when they were in their early 20s. They both got jobs with the federal government. They worked about 30-35 years each, and retired well before the age of 65. They aren’t “rich” but they are comfortable. There’s a lexus and benz in the garage, they travel internationally about 3 months out of the year, and buy lots of toys. They have a government pension AND collect social security.

Now there’s nothing wrong with this picture as I’ve described it. They are honest, decent people who have worked hard and earned everything they have.

The problem comes in when you look at my kids (their grandkids.) There’s no way my kids will have the same outcome if they choose the same path. My kids will enter the workforce in a decade or two and they will start making SS payment that will go directly to their grandparents. They will pay federal taxes that will go directly to their grandparents. But, all else being equal, when my kids reach the age of 55, they will be looking at another 20 years of work before they can see any sort of “entitlement” payments or be able to retire.

Much of this can be explained with demographics – every generation lives much longer. But not all of it. For the first time in American history, there is an indisputable wealth inequality between generations.

[quote]Therefore, the Boomers can’t be blamed for the shift in inequality demonstrated by this data.[/quote]

“Blame” isn’t the right word. But you cannot dismiss the fact that there is a generational wealth gap. We can’t blame the boomer generation for causing it – nobody could have seen it coming. But I will blame the boomer generation if they don’t have the ethics to try and fix it. They have the power. They can use it to keep what’s theirs, or they can do the right thing.

[quote]I can’t believe that Paul Ryan is trying to take on older Americans. It’s obvious (at least to a few people) that he’s not terribly bright. But, man!! Someone needs to explain to him and his pals that he’s not playing nice with the group that
a) votes the most (by far!)
b) contributes the most money to political campaigns[/quote]

Like I said, they have the power.

But do you realize what you are saying here? Should a politician ignore the realities and simply cater to those that provide campaign contributions?

Yeah, like we need more of that!

[quote]And that illustrates another point: Many older Americans have “wealth” […] because they’ve been much more prudent in their spending habits. [/quote]

You are contradicting yourself here. You argue that older people really don’t have much wealth, but then claim the reason they have more wealth is because they are more prudent.

So your generation was better behaved than these kids today?

Now you just sound like an old person.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=eavesdropper] . . . Many older Americans have “wealth” (in reality, “wealth” = no debt, a paid-off mortgage, and 35 bucks in the bank) because they’ve been much more prudent in their spending habits. Most realized that there was an important distinction between being able to *BUY* something, and being able to *AFFORD* it, and they have the self-discipline to keep from crossing that line. That went away in the mid-90s, when the banks were trying to lend out all that cheap money the Fed was giving them, and sold the idea to the poor and the middle-class that they weren’t poor and middle-class.

And the problem is that they’re still not accepting of the idea that they’re poor and middle-class. They’re in a temporary cash-crunch because the “boomers” stole all their money when they weren’t looking.[/quote]

So true, Eaves! Another excellent post that answers my question …

[quote=bearishgurl]How do you define “rich?”[/quote]

[Author]

Posts