Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Converge for Justice: Occupy Wall Street South - Bank of America Call to Action!

Posted 2 years ago on May 3, 2012, 2:39 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

make boa pay

via NCAgainstCorporatePower.org

Converge for Justice
Occupy Wall Street, South
Break Up BOA’s Business as Usual!
May 6-9, Charlotte, NC

On May 6-9 people from across the country and world will be converging in Charlotte, NC, home of Bank of America’s Headquarters and their annual Shareholder meeting, to demand an end to their practices that are bankrupting our economy and wrecking our climate.

Homeowners, students, immigrants, environmentalists, workers, women’s groups, peace activists and more will be in Charlotte, bringing their stories, hearts and communities to the fight against Bank of America and the economic inequality, racial injustice and environmental destruction they have wrought.

Bank of America is:

  • Number 1 forecloser of homes in the US,
  • Number 1 funder of the US coal industry,
  • Job killer by letting go of nearly 100,000 workers over the past several years,
  • Bonus Buster paying its top five executives over $500 million in bonuses,
  • Saddling students with a lifetime of debt, and
  • Financing the war machine.

Bank of America, and its profits-over-people-and-planet business model, is drowning our democracy through huge financial contributions to lobbyists that are serving the interests of the 1% and are participating in corporate-funded groups like American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Financial Services Roundtable.

As a global community united for real economic and racial justice, it is time that BoA is held accountable, invest in public needs and services, or face being broken up to achieve the justice we need. Whether you are a community member, homeowner, worker or student, we need to come together to challenge corporate power and create an economy and democracy that works for all of us.

Join the 99% for a Week of Actions as We Break Up Bank of America’s Business As Usual!

Week of Action!

Interfaith Activities
Day of Training
Art making
Action Spokes Council

Mon, May 7
Visibility Day with activities in high traffic areas and local banks!
Action Spokes Council

Tues. May 8
Education Day with Press event, poll actions and Alternative Summit!
Final trainings and action spokes council

Wed. May 9
Break Up Business as Usual for Bank of America Shareholders!

On the morning of May 9 at 8 am, people from around the state, country and world will converge on the “Wall Street of the South” to participate in creative, mass non-violent direct action to “Break Up Business As Usual for Bank of America.” Our marches will carry our call for justice to the doors of the Shareholder meeting and surrounding areas. On the day of the Shareholder meeting, people will have the opportunity to engage in a variety of creative educational, cultural, theatrical, visibility, and nonviolent direct action activities.

March Assembly Sites:

Housing Justice Now! Bank of America, N. Tryon @ 9th St.

Stop Funding Coal and the Militarization of Our Communities! The Green, Tryon @ Levine Ave of the Arts

Corporations Out of Politics: Pay Your Taxes Not Your Lobbyists! Old City Hall, Davidson @ 4th St

For more information on housing, how to get involved in organizing for the Bank of America Shareholder’s protest and to RSVP your contingent, visit www.ncagainstcorporatepower.org

Facebook event: Protest the Bank of America Shareholder Meeting

Twitter: #MakeBoAPay

For questions related to general information, please email: nc.boa.general@gmail.com

For questions related to the Week of Actions, please email: BOA.actioninfo@gmail.com

64 Comments

64 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

We ought to protest the Democratic and Republican conventions too.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

repost.. It's about JUSTICE over the Law.

Laws are so Abused, and twisted in the Hands of the Harvard-ites in Politics and Wall Street.. .. that we no longer have a Nations Capitol, .. But a 'HEN HOUSE'

I was hoping for a Peaceful Movement. But to be met by obstruction and abuse has created a bad Taste in the mouths of those who have dreamed of a Group so Strong in Numbers, so like minded now Happening.. but disrespected so completely by those we are trying to reach.. .. That the Fear of Anarchy.. and Revolution is growing. .. It's how other Countries are now in Violent Protest. And, Its a consideration here as well if we cannot get our Voices not only Heard.. but CHANGE made by the Intent.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28308) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

TRUTH.

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Exactly.. DK, TY.. and the Truth IS... 'Freedom'

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28308) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth can set us free if we choose to act on it. {:-])

[-] 2 points by Coinyer101 (25) 2 years ago

awesome...., I love OWS.....,

[-] 2 points by 99oneofus99 (20) 2 years ago

Use Facebook to communicate future OWS operations.

Oh wait, Facebook is on Wall Street.

Eh, I guess it can get a pass.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm the only person I know that's not on Facebook. I've had so many people tell me they could not live without Facebook, and yet it is easy for me. The people I care about I call on the phone and talk to or write them letters or chat with them via webcam.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if they ban you.

you won't be able to communicate with anyone whose account by default is set to private

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

B of A is no longer America's bank. It has lost the moral high ground . . . if it ever had it.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

It's about JUSTICE over the Law.

Laws are so Abused, and twisted in the Hands of the Harvard-ites in Politics and Wall Street.. .. that we no longer have a Nations Capitol, .. But a 'HEN HOUSE'

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Blisser (2) 2 years ago

Thanks. How about also "Profits for the People and the Planet! I developed the idea in 1984, and created this site in 2005 to promote it over the Internet.http://profitdonationcapitalism.org/ What a world we could create if every time we bought a product, the profits went to the people rather than to making the rich richer!

[-] 1 points by lemmys1983 (-5) 2 years ago

How would the workers get paid for making this product they have to feed their kids and pay bills. Think first man!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by domeschino (-7) 2 years ago

The BEST protest is a MASS MEDITATION send a peaceful message of LOVE AND TO REDISCOVER OUR SPIRITUALITY that was taken away many years ago. They changed our DNA ( 95% is junk) to lower your conscious and imprison us here on this planet. They drugged us with sex, money, cars, music,MOVIES to make us forgot we are very powerful spiritual beings.They deprived us from other civilizations and technology They had us slaughter each other for thous years. FREE YOURSELF. MEDITATE and Ask for the LIGHT THE ENERGY Reactivate your DNA. organize MASS MEDITATION.Join our facebook group and spread the word..turn those protests in mass meditations... THIS IS OUR ONLY WAY OUT! LET'S DO IT

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Don't forget to hit the polls next Tuesday to vote AGAINST the bigoted Amendment One!

Are there any evening activities planned? I can probably corral some people, but it would have to be in the evening.

[-] -2 points by panthanjj (-1) 2 years ago

irony: there are those mad about signing up for loans for going to way overpriced colleges/univerisities. they somehow believe that the lenders are the ones that set tuition/fee rates. wonder how these people even got into college in the first place. justice? how about arrests for trespassing, impeding a public road, rape of a minor, drug use, and on and on. if there was any justice most of these so called 'occupiers' would be in jail. good thing iam not there a cause i would run over them with my gas guzzling truck. can anybody say 'personal responsibility'. oops. bet those are four letter words on this site.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Your gas guzzling truck is polluting the atmosphere, the air we breathe. We must all take responsibility, including you.

[-] -2 points by kaerfpo (-20) 2 years ago

•Number 1 forecloser of homes in the US,

When you are the number one lender, you would be the number one forecloser.

•Number 1 funder of the US coal industry,

And whats wrong with coal?

, •Saddling students with a lifetime of debt,

BOA did not force students to go to overprice schools, to get near worthless degrees?

•Financing the war machine

Thats thats made up bullshit.

[-] 3 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I have a degree in Computer Programming, but I guess that was worthless because I only have a steady full-time job, plenty of money, and opportunities for advancement or to start my own firm...

[+] -4 points by kaerfpo (-20) 2 years ago

judging by me being down rated. OWS sheep cant stand facts.

[-] 2 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

wow, someone REALLY doesn't like it when people "petition the government for redress of grievances," does someone? Oh, what's that? Your response is going to be to just "vote?" Right, that'll change everything. So, time to get rid of the constitutional provisions referencing "peaceful assembly?"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

an increase in voter turn out would help

[-] 2 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

I'm afraid it would not help at all. Still stuck with a two party, monopolistic system that panders to wealthy, powerful, and connected. This systems resembles a lite version of feudalism. What would help would be a dismissal of the elected Congress (both House and Senate), and replacement of it with a CITIZEN Congress (meaning any U.S. citizen with basic mastery of civics and how the lawmaking process works). That means YOU would be eligible to serve. So would I. So would any of your friends.

[-] 1 points by panthanjj (-1) 2 years ago

voting will not count as long as we keep sending the people back to washington that got us into this mess. all 535 congressman, the president, every bureaucracy chief and many of their assistants need to be replaced.basically we need to start over. but the terrorists knew that. that is why they attacked productive people in the towers and those who would protect us in the military. the terrorists know that the people in washington are their closest allies!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yes, all those are issues

but the vote of the people will be more respected if participation is higher

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

I just don't believe that to be true. The process has become corrupted by special interest money beyond repair or redemption. What's the problem, Matt, do you think you and your neighbors would do THAT MUCH worse of a job proposing and passing laws than these idiots that get themselves elected year after year via use of special interest cash to churn out more propaganda? I say AT LEAST replace the "elected" House of Representatives with a CITIZEN House of Representatives (they would come and go every 4 years), even if we left the Senate as is. Are you telling me you couldn't or wouldn't serve in such a house if you received summons to go do that?

[-] 1 points by panthanjj (-1) 2 years ago

it saddens me that when people speak of 'corporations' and their political spending for their special interests, they conveniently leave out supposed nonprofits like planned parenthood, media matters, and other corporations that are set up in a different manner. corporations are basically a group of people that have come together through various means to accomplish a certain goal. private companies are there to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders. nonprofits are there to make the individuals that run them and a handful of others rich without having to actually supply a product or service. media matters come to mind. planned parenthood at least provide the service of killing babies. the 'occupy' groups are corporations representing people who do not want personal responsibility. the '99%' they keep talking about are 99% of those who believe they are entitled to something they have not worked for or earned.

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

Panthanjj, sorry, but your are incorrect and ill informed on the definition of a "corporation." Under the law, a "corporation" is an ARTIFICIAL PERSON, not just a group of people that have come together to accomplish a certain goal. I would suggest you take the time to study the history of the modern corporation, how it was used to be CHARTERED by the STATE for specific reasons, and how (until Standard Oil came along), it was dismantled once it's mission was completed. The wisdom behind such dismantlement (which no longer takes place) was to AVOID multi-generational accumulation of wealth and power which eclipses natural people, who die after a certain number of years. Artificial people do not die, they live on forever. While you are at it, I urge you to look into the flawed configuration of corporate governance, allowing a CEO to also head up or serve on the board of directors of a publicly held corporation. This diminishes accountability and integrity in profound ways, but it seems you failed to mention that. Everything else you have said is just a lot of Fox News propaganda. Not interested in propaganda; only in facts and definitions. Thank you. Oh, and one more thing...if you are that disturbed by the action of people exercising their rights to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, I suggest you move to ammend the applicable provision in the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

both houses of congress are a way of KETTLING the politically active. both are puppet shows. so is the president. the whole system of law and property rights is beyond their reach. the corruption of the tyranny controls the show.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no way I would trust a black box of summons rule

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Just go for one lie at a time. The more bullshit you throw out at once, the less likely you are to get a response.

This crap has been dealt with umpteen times and you're dead wrong.

I just don't care to repeat myself......again..........

[-] -2 points by kaerfpo (-20) 2 years ago

Problem with your post. Is that I'm not wrong.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

See? One lie at a time is easier..................:)

[-] -2 points by Frog12 (0) 2 years ago

Students agree to pay of loans and people agree to pay of their mortages. Exactly what the hell is the "War Machine", who cares if they fund coal, it is a resource.

[-] 6 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

Sheesh, one of those types. OK, I'll indulge. 1) students never used to have to pay student loans amounting to $100,000; education never used to cost that much. The fact that it does is market manipulation, plain and simple. Think students should have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an education? In that case, why are we not charging students to attend kindergarden, elementary, and high school? What's the difference? People agree to pay their mortgages, but they didn't agree to pay interest rates ten to twenty times the original rate. Don't think predatory lending exists? As for coal, it certainly is a resource, as long as you have no need to drink water or breathe air anymore. And finally, as for "war machine," Google it yourself and learn something, right-winger.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Verg good. You handled him very well.

[-] 1 points by texasbub (1) 2 years ago

By your answer, it's apparent you've never had a job or paid taxes or had a family. If you had experience with any of these, you would know that elementary school and high school are paid for through taxation. It's not free, never has been. Probably free to you because, as I said earlier you've never had a job or paid taxes.

As far as student loans for college goes, the choice is yours to get a higher education.It is a wise choice. Somebody needs to pay for it. It ought to be the person getting the education. Think the cost is to high, find a cheaper school or get a part time job to help defray the costs. Or maybe delay college while you work and save some money for school. It isn't easy (speaking from personal experience) but it can be done. Nothing is free in this world, nor should it be.

For someone with an attitude like yours, the best advice I can give is to memorize this sentence to help you in your future job "Would you like fries with that?"

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

Well texas-hick-bub, your bold assumptions fall as flat as your logic. Wrong all the way across the board; just wrong. I have worked since age 16. I have paid taxes since that time. I have a brother with 4 kids. And I'm not stupid; I'm well aware that education is paid for through taxation. I pay for some of it, because I also own property and pay property taxes. As far as who pays for college education, all your mindless drivel does is re-spew more right-winger talking points. But what it does NOT do is address the question of WHY primary education is TAX PAID, and post-secondary "should be" paid for by the student. Furthermore, I never said anything in this world should be free. But I do believe all education should be paid for collectively. And finally, I do not work fast food. That's beneath me, chump...I'm a vegan, and I do NOT handle dead animals. That's it; you're dismissed.

[-] 1 points by frieswiththat (2) 2 years ago

plainscott

I found this thread amusing a day ago and went to revisit it to show some friends. Things were not the same upon my return. Why did you edit your answer that started this thread? You initially said that people did not have to pay to attend elementary and high school. You changed the context to say that people aren't charged for it. Different as night and day. Revisionist history at best.

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

Frieswiththat, what the hell are you talking about? You are blathering; and making no sense. What history has been revised? What the HELL are you talking about? Are you on drugs? The facts about education are widely known not even a subject for debate. Everyone knows that elementary and high school education costs are charged to property tax payers, not directly to students and their families. Everyone knows college education costs ARE charged directly to students, at least the portion not subsidized by the state at public universities. So, what changed context are you referring to? Again, what the HELL are you talking about?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by kaerfpo (-20) 2 years ago

by type, you mean someone that works on facts, vs feelings?

[-] 3 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

by "type," I mean someone who spews more brainwashed nonsense from right-wing corporatist dictators rather than someone who does his or her own INDEPENDENT thinking. But since you bring it, yes, sometimes FACTS are what they are, but should not alone dictate public policy without being tempered by pressures of social justice, which are OFTEN shaped by FEELINGS, yes.

[-] -1 points by kaerfpo (-20) 2 years ago

brainwashed? Most of you OWS types are brainwashed. Hench this stupid story based on lies was posted. And you sheep belive it.

[-] 1 points by neutrinobambino (12) 2 years ago

kaerfpo, it's okay that i disagree with you, but i really think you have habitual thinking patterns that are counterproductive for advancement in life.

for instance, i don't think you intended to use the word "hench." Also, you tried to prove a point "if you're the number 1 lender..." that we already understand. i don't want BOA to be the #1 lender. If no one is that big, no one bank can wreck so many lives by its own failure, no one gets bailed out. and BOA is not the whole problem, obvs. So either you should be more careful when you type/speak, or you just need to educate yourself. If either of these issues are bad habits of yours, do me a favor:

Use google to research COAL, how it is mined, its impact on the environment, how efficient it is when put to use, its impact on local economies, and the conditions in which miners work. Don't read the news, do serious research. Then look into alternatives not just to coal, but also to all the ways coal is acquired and used. Then come on here and ask us better questions than "what's wrong with coal?" GET THE FACTS. THINK. FOR. YOURSELF.

[-] -3 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

1) the banks don't set tuition/books/housing costs for college. 2) a loan is an agreement, you can't change the rates without the consent of the person taking the loan. 3) I agree that some of the responsibility for predatory lending falls on the banks, but an equal share falls on the person taking the loan. If there weren't being greedy... 4) coal? Yeah...we should have moved on from burning stuff by now.

[-] 3 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

1) nowhere in my post did I STATE that banks set tuition rates or book prices. But I sure did imply that banks EXPLOIT individuals who wish to receive adequate education, yes I DID! In answer, are you to assert that exploitation of persons with structural disadvantages in their circumstances is GOOD public policy? Are you going to claim that expoitation is good public policy generally? As for the loan agreement, here again, EXPLOITATION is the key word. Legal, yes. Unethical, yes. How about your proverbial grandmother, elderly, trusting, lacking assistance from her loving children, falling prey to a slick salesperson trying to get her to sign a contract for a DAMAGING financial product that is AGAINST her best interest to have? Once the old lady signs, is it legal? Yes. Ethical? NO!! But exploiters are very creative at finding ways to exploit; to enrich themselves at the expense of another, usually someone with a distinct disadvantage. Whether it's high-pressure sales tactics, LYING (saying something verbally that is CONTRARY to the contents of a contract), or placing materially critical information in FINE PRINT, and pressuring a "mark" to sign RIGHT AWAY, before they "deal gets away." Stuff like that. All perfectly legal. Ethical? Moral? Good public policy? I recommend you do some more thinking...

[-] 2 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

...and while we're on the topic of education, and financial literacy as relates to complex financial transactions, would one of you right-wingers care to explain WHAT is it that scares you about the idea of masses of people getting a complete, practical, valid education at taxpayer expense? Is it that they would be armed with enough financial literacy to then defend themselves against corporate exploitation by Bank of America? It would hurt the banks' bottom lines, wouldn't it? Is that what troubles you about thoroughly informing people? Fess up!

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm not scared about it - it just isn't practical, and it would be MORE taxpayer money being flushed down the toilet. People just think - "ooh, I'd like to go to college for free" but they don't think about how it would be done. Does everyone just get $50,000 to spend indiscriminately? Or do you set up a public college system that is free. Think about our public education system k-12, and just make it k-16. Once everyone is getting into college, the system will have to be dumbed down to make sure everyone can pass, or else it is "unfair." So now you have a public system that is a complete waste of money, and people asking for scholarships to go to a private institution where they can actually learn something AND have a piece of paper that means something to an employer.

I'm in favor of making student loans something that are manageable for young people and increasing scholarship funds. Please, tell me what your plan for free education is - how does it work in your mind?

[-] 3 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

It works in my mind exactly the way you described...public system to ANYONE who earns it with good student performance...K-16. You got it. No one said a WORD about dumbing down anything; you said that. But if a student has the ability to excel in the reception of his or her education, lack of money should NOT be an obstacle to that. Society benefits when greater numbers of people are better educated, UNLESS you want that society dumb, suggestable, pliable, and subservient. As for loans, FORGET IT. Haven't you hear the old prover: "neither a borrower nor a lender be?" $200,000 student loans, no matter the interest rate, amount to economic slavery, plain and simple.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

What about students that don't have the academic ability? Who gets to make the decision on who "earns" it? Did it ever occur to you there is a correlation between income and SAT scores? So people who don't have the smarts - whether it is because of a crappy home life, absence of resources, or just bad genetics - do not get to benefit from this "free" education? Are you to assert that denying an education to persons with structural disadvantages in their circumstances is GOOD public policy?

[-] 0 points by proudofOKC (361) 2 years ago

Money should not be the burden of the student. The student should focus on his/her studies. Class sizes all through the K-12 system should be small so that teachers and administrators can pay attention to each child. Instead of mass babysitting, they need to be able to notice if a child's behavior changes which could be indicative of abuse at home, and what the child's interests are as far as education and a possible career. When a child finishes the legal compulsory years of education, s/he should have all of the tools necessary to be a standup citizen of society: financial management, safe sexual practices, family planning, cooking and home economics, and professional capabilities. If a child is flunking out of the system, s/he needs to be placed in a special needs school that can still train them to be able to take care of themselves. Drop-outs should not be punished and cast to the wind.

Furthermore, a student who can handle the curriculum should be allowed to take the classes regardless of how much money they have. The species needs the child whose brain understands and enjoys organic chemistry to be able to study it regardless of his bank account. There is so much more to be said about this but I have final exams to grade and therefore need to return to this discussion later.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

That is a beautiful picture you paint - and I can't find anything in there that I disagree with. Unfortunately, I don't think it is realistic.

My point, however, was that if we provide "free" k-16 education for all citizens, then it has to be for ALL citizens. We can't discriminate by intelligence.

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

"We" discriminate by intelligence all the time. It is called the grading system, maybe you've heard of it. The more capable and intelligent students receive better grades; the less capable and dumber ones receive lower grades, or FAILS. I suspect right-wingers and multi-national corporate apologists don't like paid-for, k-16 education for students who prove they can complete the coursework because they feel the power structure within corporate and religious institutions would be threatened by critical, independent thinking. They are probably correct.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You said: "They should ONLY discriminate, and filter out who gets let in, on the basis of PROVEN ACADEMIC ABILITY. That means high school grades, and that means test scores. Sounds like a free market, competetive process to me, the "tree-huggin' vegan freak.""

I said "What about students that don't have the academic ability? Who gets to make the decision on who "earns" it? Did it ever occur to you there is a correlation between income and SAT scores? So people who don't have the smarts - whether it is because of a crappy home life, absence of resources, or just bad genetics - do not get to benefit from this "free" education? Are you to assert that denying an education to persons with structural disadvantages in their circumstances is GOOD public policy?"

Why do taxes pay for grade school education and not college? K-12 is basic education, college is advanced. I assume you think that we should for someone to attend undergrad, grad school and doctorate all on public money. What about law school, and medical school - I guess we should throw those in there too. So now we are looking at paying for 20 years of education for every citizen, and I guess we have to pay all their bills while they are going to school as well.

Why do people need to get a college education? To help them get a job, i assume - and that is because the college education sets them apart from another person who didn't go to college. If EVERYONE goes to college, then that separation doesn't exist. So what's the point?

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

No, it did NOT occur to me there is a correlation between income and SAT scores. Perhaps if you are going to assert such a thing, you ought to cite a study somewhere, no? The rest of your paragraph makes my argument for me, congratulations on that. Second paragraph: I am going to assert that K-12 alone is NOT basic education any longer. On what do I base that? What jobs and professions are available now to someone with nothing more than a 12th grade education? Perhaps minimum wage retail, if that? Or perhaps nothing. I would argue that a 4 year bachelor's degree NOW what K-12 used to be. Third paragraph response: a person cannot COMPETE for any job without a bachelor's degree in the year 2012, but a person can compete without post-graduate degrees. Your final paragraph makes no sense, and makes no point at all...it seemed like you typed that just to hear yourself talk. In today's economy you cannot get your resume looked at, or get any job interview, without a bachelor's degree. And among those who do have a bachelor's degree, the job market is hyper competetive, and will be for decades to come. I also notice you completely ignored the variable of how college educations today are SO expensive, the only way to get one is to take on a lifetime of non-dischargeable, CRUSHING student loan debt. Didn't used to be so expensive. You want to blame that on "the socialists?" Sure, why not. Banks had nothing to do with that, no. And banks had nothing to do with changes in the law to make student debt the same as tax debt....can never be discharged for any reason, even bankruptcy. It ain't like that with credit card debt, when you go out and buy a bunch of frivolous merchandise with your Visa. But it's like that with student loans. I wonder who was responsible for writing the laws in such a way? Think THAT was liberals? Couldn't have been the banks...nahh...

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

It took my 30 seconds to find studies...they are linked below.

http://www.danpink.com/archives/2012/02/how-to-predict-a-students-sat-score-look-at-the-parents-tax-return

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/

Just so we are clear - I am perfectly fine with allowing students to compete academically for seats in college. I just don't think the liberals are going to be satisfied with that, considering the above studies. Basically, academic competition isn't going to change the landscape of college admissions.

Your response makes it sound like you are starting to understand my point. If we make education k-16, the having a bachelor's degree becomes a non-issue. I think it will become a basic expectation for most jobs - like a high school degree. So then people will need graduate degrees for the better jobs... a few decades down the road they'll need doctorates..etc.

I didn't mean to ignore the cost of college education. I may have done that because I agree with you on that point. At least as far as state colleges go. The salaries of administrators and coaches is completely ridiculous. I whole-heartedly agree that we can do a much better job in making college education reasonable.
http://researchnews.wsu.edu/society/169.html

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

You just said: "If we make education k-16, the having a bachelor's degree becomes a non-issue. I think it will become a basic expectation for most jobs - like a high school degree. So then people will need graduate degrees for the better jobs... a few decades down the road they'll need doctorates..etc." Um, sorry, but we've already REACHED that point where the bachelor's degree is a non-issue. That is a done deal now. So, your answer is to put even the undergraduate degrees out of financial reach for ordinary income people, even if they have the academic ability? That would only make current problems with unemployment even worse.

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

So, bottom line is, your preference would be to make any education beyond 12th grade strictly the province for the elite and wealthy, so that way they do not have to compete against the young adults from lower income households for the jobs of the future which require undergraduate education. You want all advantages reserved for the wealthy and influential; got it. Glad that is clarified. I can see why and how individuals from wealthy and privileged backgrounds don't want to compete against middle and lower class career seekers. It is human nature to want to squelch competition, monopolize money, power, resources, and political influence, and raise the barriers of entry into the "good life." Humans are selfish by nature. The problem is, such a feudal approach cannot be sustained forever. History teaches us that feudal kingdoms eventually fall when enough "poor people" and ordinary people are squashed under direct or indirect forms of slavery. And slavery is what unsecured debt is, like it or not.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

And among those who do have a bachelor's degree, the job market is hyper competitive, and will be for decades to come.

no thanks

the javascript is way overwritten

my 2000 machine is clogged on a thread this long

I guessing no code is being directed to sub libraries to back write to my ff2 browser version

perhaps one day, the increase of processing power will slow and code will have to simplify

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Actually, I think you have it backwards. Right-wingers support rewarding people for hard work and recognizing the talents of the individual instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It is just that by their standard, everyone besides the one percent are the lowest common denominator and only the over achievers are rewarded. Now i don't know about you, but i could not imagine a world with just over achievers. In fact i think I'd have to off my self if I lived in such a world.

Dry, drab and devoid of danger would be the world if we all were as talented as Republicans wish we were. Give me a group of working class folks over a group of over achievers any day. Only one of those groups truly know how to live.

Now, I want you to know that I know that what I wrote was hyperbolic bull shit, but I am one who believes in tit for tat.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Everyone throws around this 1% number as if it were the only breakdown in the world. Do you know how many "right-wingers" are part of the "1%"? At the very most...it would be 1% - that means the rest of the right wing supporters are part of the 99%. I have news for you, roughly an equal percentage of working class folks are right wing and left wing. If that were not true, all political offices would be filled by democrats.

Dry, drab and devoid of danger sounds more like working class, than over-achievers. Go to work, manage the status quo, don't shake things up. Those right wingers in the 99% support recognizing people for their efforts. I feel comfortable in stating that conservatives don't believe that education should be catered to the lowest common denominator - some children will fail, and don't believe every child should get a trophy - we should recognize individual achievement as well. These are liberal beliefs that we can everyone the same...not necessarily great...just the same.

I agree that we discriminate by intelligence, but my point above was that if we are going to give a free college education, then we have to give it to EVERYONE. You would not be able to turn people away who normally would not have been accepted into college. And then we couldn't have people failing out, now could we - because that would be discriminatory as well.

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 2 years ago

friendlyopposition, your statements undermine your own arguments. And you are attempting to cloak your self contradictions in sarcasm. It's pretty transparent, actually. You are trying to claim that non-right wingers support the notion that "everyone gets a trophy." Well, I'm a non-right winger, and I support the notion that higher education institutions CAN and SHOULD discriminate, but NOT on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc....and by the way, NOT on the basis of ability to pay the tuition. They should ONLY discriminate, and filter out who gets let in, on the basis of PROVEN ACADEMIC ABILITY. That means high school grades, and that means test scores. Sounds like a free market, competetive process to me, the "tree-huggin' vegan freak." And MY point still stands in the form of the question which remains UNANSWERD by you in this thread. I'll restate it: WHY should we make K-12 education free of charge to students and taxpayer financed, but COLLEGE education charged to the students and NOT taxpayer financed? Why the difference in acceptable financing between the two types of education? Answer, please.

[Removed]