Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

UC Riverside Regents: "You're fired!"

Posted 9 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 6:51 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

UC Riverside Brings in sheriffs with riot gear. (Cropped)

Occupy LA vists UC Riverside, previous coverage:

[...] Riot cops w/ pepper ball guns massing to "guard" the regents from a nonviolent, peaceful protests of students. The same students that the regents at UC-Riverside are supposed to be representing[...]

They've declared it an unlawful assembly twice now, but have since tried to fictionalize the narrative w/ "Stop advancing on the officers" -- Students ARE NOT ADVANCING, just demanding free education and the regents to open up their meeting. Private regents meeting is actually against the law.

Lots of OLA'ers in the protest of about 500.

~ Ryan Rice

The cops were not happy with no arrests at the action earlier in the day, and have used rubber bullets on peaceful students, and community members (as reported by PMBeers).



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

Like the poster says:

  • "When you're dressed in Riot Gear, everything looks like a Riot."
[-] 4 points by flyingcactus (12) from Gainesville, FL 9 years ago

I am solidly behind Occupy. Participate in my area. But foul language and rudeness on the part of demonstrators will get us nowhere. Cops are the 99% too. Work out a plan before you go storming into a police station. Have a spokesperson. Have a lawyer and be patient.

[-] 4 points by riethc (1149) 9 years ago

We can get rid of the police state by bankrupting their masters!


Break up the banks! Demand Glass-Steagall! Make the Wall Street games illegal!

[-] 3 points by Durandus (181) 9 years ago

And more immediately, don't buy any goods or services offered by Corporations, including entertainment and the celebrity shills that hock the Corporate game.

Starve the Beast!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 9 years ago

Exactly, buying their products is like supplying bullets to the enemy.


[-] 3 points by jnaje001 (2) 9 years ago

As a former UC Riverside student myself, I think that a number of people are misinformed as to what the students are protesting. This is a good article that addresses some of the students' concerns regarding the University of California systems tuition increases: http://thebackbench.blogspot.com/2007/08/tuition-at-university-of-california.html

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Thanks for providing more information so we have more to go on than just this post!

[-] 2 points by Glimik (2) 9 years ago

Bad boys bad boys what you gonna do, what you gonna do when Occupy comes for you.

[-] -1 points by muddFlapp (-108) 9 years ago

They will not be coming after ya for too much longer, they are busted and about set to close up shop

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 9 years ago

lol, how would that work for the rest of us?

(Feigned concern) followed by "well officer, he appeared to advancing toward me... so I punched him in the nose, it was clearly self-defence... what do you mean he was sitting there minding his own business? I had trouble stepping over him so I maced him point blank in the face."

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

thanks LA

[-] 1 points by 4weed (2) from Hollister, CA 9 years ago

What do I want to see as an active member of the occupy movement ...... I want to see a Presidential canadate talk about getting the world to the future ....... We Need BIG, BOLD, NEW IDEAS to get there (There are NONE in the MAKING) (you should be very frightned by that)....... and tell me how one man can have so much and so many have so little and how corporations can make BILLIONS and pay no taxes and get MILLIONS in subsidies from the Goverment? SEE my group .... Big Bold Ideas to the Future Join on FACEBOOK and post yours ....

[-] 1 points by 4weed (2) from Hollister, CA 9 years ago

What do I want to see as an active member of the occupy movement ...... I want to see a Presidential canadate talk about getting the world to the future ....... We Need BIG, BOLD, NEW IDEAS to get there (There are NONE in the MAKING) (you should be very frightned by that)....... and tell me how one man can have so much and so many have so little and how corporations can make BILLIONS and pay no taxes and get MILLIONS in subsidies from the Goverment? SEE my group .... Big Bold Ideas to the Future Join on FACEBOOK and post yours ....

[-] 1 points by antiglobb (47) 9 years ago

Don't take the goods from the producers to the consumers. We have done so and now all the Country is blocked. In the supermarkets there aren't goods anymore. People are starved. The governement is about falling. Follow our example. This is the best way to break away the Corps.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

I think this article sums up greed very well.... and the opposite of greed....

"True Wealth by Owen Waters

In the Old Reality, the pursuit of wealth had a purely financial focus which resulted in a predictable set of experiences about life.

Aggressive pursuers of wealth typically spent their lives chasing ever-greater financial goals, yet finding other aspects of their lives drawn into a downward spiral. This descending vortex entrapped them with overwhelming, self-imposed responsibilities and the constant need to go to great lengths to protect their wealth. At the conclusion of their lives, they wondered why they were envied, but not liked, and why no amount of wealth could bring back their health.

Old Reality consciousness was based in the solar plexus chakra, focusing on competition and the development of basic intellect. The New Reality exists in heart-centered consciousness, focusing on cooperation and the higher qualities of life. The New Reality definition of true wealth is this:

True wealth comes from enlightenment, peace, and purpose.

Here are the general areas of activity that bring true quality of life.

Enlightenment Studying the spiritual nature of reality Studying wellness to enable you to function to your full potential Developing skills related to your life’s purpose

Peace Creating a life filled with purpose, harmony and abundance Experiencing inner peace and joy as you develop spiritually Practicing daily meditation to develop inner awareness

Purpose Practicing service to others through your chosen work Following inner guidance to establish spiritual flow in your actions Healing the world as a powerful path of spiritual growth

Today, you can take a major step in the direction of point number one, the study of the spiritual nature of reality by discovering the answer to the age-old mystery of why life exists.

Just imagine what it would be like to wake up every morning and know that you hold the key to the very reason for life itself. Not just to your own purpose, but the master key to the very reason for the existence of the universe!

Now, you can! My latest e-book, “The Answer to Why We Are Here,” is being offered by Amazon.com FREE today (Sunday January 22nd) as a promotion.

You do NOT need a Kindle device to read this e-book, just the FREE reader software that will run on your existing computer.

First, install the reader software, then Amazon will know what to do when you download the e-book.

To download “Kindle for PC,” the free E-book Reader software for Windows computers: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000426311

To download free Kindle Reader Apps for Macs, iPads and smartphones: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000493771

Next, obtain your copy of the e-book, “The Answer to Why We Are Here” by Owen Waters, which is FREE today. (On other days, at its 99-cents introductory price, it’s almost free!).

Find out WHY YOU ARE HERE now at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/b006wsqmyc"

[-] 1 points by Edwin (47) from Anseong-si, Gyeonggi-do 9 years ago

UC seems to be a fascist place. I no longer respect that institution.

They need to be Occupied more.

[-] 1 points by Kingoliver3 (6) 9 years ago

blackbloc's name suggests negativity, gangsterism, impulsive macho nonthinking, , much like the brown shirts's name under nazism. Any thick headed brawniness, or instant gratification through violence, instead of the brains and patience needed for the long battle ahead, is harmful to OWS

[-] 1 points by applesause (2) from San Jose, CA 9 years ago

This is interesting "Occupying Here & Now" by Joseph Natoli touches on this same topic! Have any of ya'll read this?

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 9 years ago

There is nothing at all in the constitution about us having to have a police force. Not one word about it. Over the last 120 years or so they have been implemented town by town to create a police state to install fear in the people by those who truly run this system. The fact that there are police has nothing to do with keeping the peace or creating a safer enviornment. Its a tactic to weigh on us as a people to instill paranoia, and to not allow us to have and express our basic freedoms and human rights. If people realized what their rights are and how the system has been munipulated to protect those at the top, and how the constitution has been turned against its people, the people would revolt in a moment. Its just getting the people by the masses to realize what has been stolen from them.

[-] 1 points by Kingoliver3 (6) 9 years ago

The most highly, truly fully educated and wisest among us should be the only ones to have guns to police us. The reverse is true: it is the people who have no high education, the ones who simply need a job beasue the cant get one anywhere else, and who have a belief like nazis in their fuhrer -the USA poresident and owned congressmen- that have the weapons against us., Police onyl belive in one thing: in keeping the status quo established. They don';t know how toi think out anything for themselves in any sophisticated way, and are happy little soldiers ready to die for the Powers that be. THE AUTHOR of this philosophy is:: PLATO! It is his "The Republic", which was written 2,500 years ago and is still rock solid true. He also predicted that no good government is ever possible because of that fact. The most ignorant and unthinking among us will always be given the weapons to hold us all down, and the weapons will be given to them by by the greediest, most powerful and amoral among us.

[-] 1 points by Justice4all (133) 9 years ago

When you said Republic--reminds me of the line from that one Star Wars movie. "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause" Its because of the cowards who have been given power, and just follow as they are told to do so. There are never any true leaders in any position of power (government, police etc..)--only cowardess followers put in leadership roles.

[-] 1 points by bettydonnelly (115) 9 years ago

The people who are posting these Videos and the people who are on them as Protesters need to know that they are being Watched by many people who are sympathetic to your movement. Foul Language takes all the Power away from your words and actions. And why are there Advertisements on them ?

[-] 1 points by DonHawkins (37) 9 years ago


last post how was my spelling

[-] 1 points by Joeboy32 (72) 9 years ago

Unfortunately America's economy exists based on consumption and that includes "higher education". It should be free to people who truly want to advance their knowledge on a profession, but at the end of day, you need money. Plus, nowadays there's a lot of students dropping out of school because they cannot afford to stay in school and they really want their degree and pursue career later.

but, as most will say, that's the way it is.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

We need money, as you say, but we have money. It's just not being spent on education. Higher knowledge should not be a game in which some win and some lose. It should be open access to those who are smart enough and dedicated enough to handle the curriculum. There should also be more job opportunities for those with associate certificates instead of degrees. You shouldn't have to get a random bachelor's degree just to be able to get a job. We should also improve our public schools so that a high school senior is educated enough to be able to get a job that can support both himself and his family.

[-] 1 points by Korsen (53) from Fairfield, CT 9 years ago

I dropped out of college because I refused to pay for an education I didn't expect, that I didn't want, and that didn't work. WHY THE FUCK ARE WE CHARGING $200,000 FOR WHAT SHOULD BE AN APPRENTICESHIP? HOWCOME THAT SHIT ISN"T GOOD ENOUGH ANYMORE?

Example: Why the fuck are we still going to high school, when we can go to technical school instead, and still be able to go to college with something to fall back on in case it's not for us? Technical school still teaches stuff right? It's got "school" in the name so it has to right?

[-] 0 points by shifty2 (117) 9 years ago

You droped out because you could only learn four letter words, Profanity is a weak mind trying to express it's self.

[-] 1 points by Korsen (53) from Fairfield, CT 9 years ago

Then you must've not learned anything with your education, because you completely missed that 14 letter word I put in really big letters up there you dumb fuck. Profanity is expression like any other. Profanity releases pain, and it hurts me to see that you can't even spell "dropped" correctly, because it must've happened to your brain. You should be the angry one instead of me. So shut your fucking mouth.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Profanity means nothing. The word profane originated to mean things "not from the church", and that label was added to words. People who get high and mighty on saying profanity is used by people of weak mind's should step down from their pedestals. I get sick of hearing this point of view.

[-] 1 points by Korsen (53) from Fairfield, CT 9 years ago

Check out my reply to him hahahahaha. Also, I didn't know about that word's origin. Thanks! Damn religious fanatics. When they run out of intelligence, they use god.

[-] 1 points by shifty2 (117) 9 years ago

Ok you got me I can't spell, I was just wondering if you believe the movement needs large numbers of the public to efect any change in the country, I do and I can't understand why people can't post without profanity, It would help to atract all people why ofend instead of talking about the isues in an adult maner just wondering.

[-] 0 points by pedro01 (1) 9 years ago

UC Regents to OWS: 'you are fired you pathetic clowns'


[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 9 years ago

Beers is the only person to claim rubber bullets were used. No one else nor the press have made such a claim.

So, is PMBeers being truthful?

[-] 0 points by SelfTheEmcee (0) from Denver, CO 9 years ago

jesus i really hate when people film and act like this just cause they have a camera. im all for occupy wall st and occupy "EVERYWHERE" but shit give um a break. a riot was not incited. it could have been but wasn't. there for shut up lady with the camera! they are doing their job and if i was a cop id prolly do the same thing. they are working overtime for these protests to keep YOU, THE PEOPLE safe! they are doing their job and im sure the protesters stress them out. they arent robots that think different than us. the are the same as you and i. this video in my opinion was pointless. its besides the point of the occupy movement. go into the offices of the people who are hurting us as a country not a police precinct, they are taking orders and the law is the law.

[-] 0 points by PatrickOxOethafulm (35) 9 years ago

the problem with the police is that they don't listen to the music hitler hated such as swing and 12-tone. GOTTA HAVE MY MAPLE LEAF RAG.. yes this was supposed to be funny but good music seriously expands the good things in the mind

[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

With a handle like "PMBeers," you just KNOW you're dealing with a correspondent of the highest caliber--a man of integrity (and sobriety).

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

Maybe it is hard for them to take a group of people demanding that their education be completely free seriously?

[-] 7 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Why shouldn't it be free?

Tinpot nation like Libya had free education, free healthcare, and a fifty thousand dollar gift to newlyweds so they could buy their own house on a government loan with no interest payments.

If it wasn't for the gross corruption inherent in the current US admin, where the rich get richer, and the poor get the picture, you could be enjoying the same lifestyle the Libyans had before getting bombed into the stone age for showing people how a country can be properly managed.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

Thank you for entering this conversation. Americans, due to simple geography, don't often encounter the perspective of those in other nations. They don't know for example, that most of the world's democracies have a socialist party, and that there is a great difference between socialism and communism. Our democracy has the narrowest range of political belief, within the established parties, of any democracy on earth. At the moment it ranges from center-right to ultra-right.

I am not a socialist, but a Jeffersonian Democrat. Yet it needs to be understood that a system has been manufactured in this country that has excluded a wide range of idea's accepted in other democracies. Noam Chomsky addresses this very well in his book "Manufacturing Consent."

[-] 6 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

I've heard a lot about Mr. Chomsky. I'll pencil that book in for a read.

I used to question American friends about the apparent black/white version of politics that seems to be the norm in the US of A. What is also apparent is the effectiveness of the propaganda machine with the corporate-owned media saturation coverage.

The old Reds-under-the-Bed syndrome, we call it here in the land of OZ. Strange how the last remaining communist super-power is now sustaining the US economy, and dictating financial decisions within the upper echelon.

Socialism scares the pants off most westerners. Why? Propaganda, mostly. Why should it be considered socialist to spread the wealth generated by the resources of the nation to all the people of that nation?

Capitalism, on the other hand, (or the current hugely corrupt version of it) deems that if you can manage to corner the market on any particular resource of the nation, it is your God-given right to manipulate the price of that resource, to the point of crippling your competition, and then dictating the market, once your monopoly (or cosy duopoly) is complete.

People are starting to realise that what they should be scared of, is this current version of capitalism.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

Damn, I couldn't have put it better! Thanks, mate!

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

You're welcome.

Just read through the thread to figure out how we ended up on this topic.

I've been doing some research on the Libyan issue. Turns out that Gaddaffi promised his people that they would all be housed before his own parents. His Father died while living in a tent. Pretty big luxury tent, I'd imagine. Hehehe.

Point is, the propaganda machine made him out to be such a complete arsehole and murderous tyrant. Which was quite simply BS.

He got screwed over by the bankers, and then murdered without trial.

Goldman Sachs paid for the mercenary army, and apparently Al Qaeda's troops were there, funded by NATO. Several of the UK's special services guys got arrested there months before the invasion.

It's a bloody nasty world we live in. Pretending to be human.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

Damn, I wasn't aware of any of this! Seems like I have a lot of fact checking to do.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

While you're looking, check out the Nubian Aquifer.

Gaddaffi poured his country's resources into building the 8th wonder of the modern world. Water being the only thing the middle east is missing, I'm not surprised the mega-corps had to have this one too.


[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Yup. The French water industry had their eyes on this when they backed the NATO invasion of Libya.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

As well as the CIA working undercover to create internal dissent among the various tribes as well as colluding with some of the richer tribal heirachy.

The old divide and rule approach.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Yes, I don't like to name them as such. I prefer the old see eye aye. Raises a few less eyebrows, if you get my drift.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

For anyone who hasn't looked through the Green Book and so hasn't a clue about the essential document connected with the Libya regime it can be downloaded here.


I have yet to see a statement put out by a western corporate state that focuses on the people and country in any way that comes near the sentiments expressed in this document.

They wouldn't dare in case they were held to it and their greedy corporate world would vanish. Libya had its own State Central bank which puts it miles ahead for a start.

Consumerism was deliberately not a part of Libya's approach to economy.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Thanks. I really appreciate your interest and assistance.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

A touch or what must be faced and soon.


The corporate scam against humanity will stop but how will dictate what is left or our future.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

The uninformed here are afraid of socialism, because they can't negate the images of the USSR from their uninformed minds..... that, and some are just too damn greedy to want everyone in the nation to thrive and to be happy.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

The uninformed here keep themselves uninformed by consuming vast quantities of corporate media bullshit, which they find delicious.

Which also explains the epidemic of gross obesity in the US.

[-] 3 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 9 years ago

Abdominal AND cerebral obesity! :)

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

More like physical obesity and mental malnourishment.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 9 years ago

I was thinking in terms of "fathead" caused by "junk TV"... :)

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Fathead is a good description of Gingerich.

[-] 3 points by Rael (176) 9 years ago

Ya know, I always look towards Libya as a model for how to build our government and our society...

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

The first casualty of war is the truth. Have a look at the link, you might be surprised what you find.


[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

So, you're against taking aspects of other nations that help their people..... just because you see that country as evil? That's being narrow minded and egocentric. That's one of the big problems we have in the USA.... thinking we're the best at everything and not adopting that which is successful in other places while refusing to admit we have a lot of issues that need to be worked out, so that they work for the common citizen and not just for the elite.

[-] 2 points by justhefacts (1275) 9 years ago

It's been my motto for years as well. :-)

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

The corruption in the U.S. government has existed for quite a while. Quit acting like it just started happening. Other than that, I agree with what you said.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Back to the 1950's from research, but as you say, many Americans have a hard time recognising the tip of the iceberg, so it's better to give some clues, rather than the whole picture, would you agree?

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean.... unless you mean info in small doses.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

I would need more concrete evidence of how Libya was to believe that, but I agree that education should be free.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Some informative reading on the link below. Gaddaffi also used his nation's wealth to build what is known as the Eighth Wonder of the World. The largest irrigation and water supply project ever built.


[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

that sits idle cause he didnt see to it the people had jobs that pay enough to pay the water bill!

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

There was no water or power bill, and gas cost 14 cents a gallon.

You might just be getting too use to being ripped off. my friend.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Education will never be free in the US while corporate investors can see a way of making a buck out of it and legislators allow them to do that as hard as they like.

Passing of knowledge and training of your minds need to be led by open and free thinking not corporate inspired indoctrination.

Free education chances are diminishing rapidly. The US has lost its way and is dominated by corporate money and bankers running a global expansion of their empire with no regard for freedom, human life or consequences of their actions to America or anyone.


[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

As someone said previously (perhaps it was you), we need to move forward and relearn to do things on our own and without consuming shit from corporations and the manipulators. We need to set up free schools wherever and however we can.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Yes, I didn't explain that one very well. Seems like the corruption goes way back in time, well before the fifties. To try to show people the big picture all at the one time is simply too much information at the one time. Where would we start?

Better to expose the current mess for what it is, and gradually work backward from there.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Indeed, our situation is not an isolated incident but within the context of a long history of such corruption.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

Who is to pay for your free shit? Oh, your neighbor?

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

No, your neighbour is trying to buy a POTUS, so he can't help you out.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

I see.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 9 years ago

they don't understand that nothing is "free" . your taxes pay for the "free" education

[-] 4 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

We spend nearly 3 billion a day on the military mainly to expand corporate greed opportunities globally.

Completely free Education at all levels would cost peanuts compared with this and do miniscule harm to the planet and world communities.


[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

No, your taxes pay for invasions of other nations, so your rich can plunder their resources.

Oh, and apparently the Pentagon "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars US, so I guess you also pay for lots of brass to live the high life.


[-] 2 points by athenagrey (7) 9 years ago

Obviously. But I'd rather pay taxes for education than to support a pointless war. Taxes are not inherently bad but the process of allocating the money certainly is.

[+] -6 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

16 trillion isn't enough for you. Pay your own fucking way.

[-] 4 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

u do not pay your own way. So do not tell others to.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

Fuck off douche drinker.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

another "intelligent" post from a troll

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 9 years ago

If GirlFriday reads this, this is what I mean.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

What you mean about what? Violence or the rich get richer?

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 9 years ago

About not knowing who represents the "real" direction of the movement. I can't say I agree with holding Libya up as a model for our country. Things like this create an unneeded distraction from what needs to be done.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Right now the movement is a bit of a mess, I agree. We need organized mobilization and direct activism. Brainstorming ideas is well and good, but just random ideas on a webpage doesn't really get us anywhere.






[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Builder, based on your assessment of the benefits of living in Libya, I've just booked each of us a one-way ticket--it's time we start living the high life. No more of this dump we call the USA, no sir! So, can I expect to see you at the airport???? No???? Hmm--I'm shocked! Stop saying such foolish things, ya goofball!

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Educate yourself. Goldman sacks blew Libya's investment funds, and hired their own army to attack Gaddaffi's forces. Any country which refuses to allow the IMF to control their finances and debt, gets bombed into aquiescence. Read up, and you won't find anything worth reading in the US of A.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Qaddafi was organizing and partly funding an African Bank to bypass the IMF.

The Z Bankers run the war machines.

They own the media and feed crap to the world

In the US they spend nearly 3 billion a day on their war machine and you pay for it , but have no control over it. Your taxes are spent expanding the empire of the bankers with grabbing oil, minerals, putting puppets into foreign govts, and privatizing infrastructure around the globe. Meanwhile the bankers rob every US citizen hand over fist.

At least the slaves knew they were in servitude but with the propaganda fed to the nation many honest US folk think they are being patriotic when in fact they have been conned big time . The wealth of the US is steadily being stripped out into the hands of a very small group of international power merchants. The Govt, GOP or Dems are all a part of the swindle or they just don't get to office.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Thanks for the info, but I don't live in the US of A.

Gaddaffi wanted to trade in a gold-based currency, like most nations did before this big ponzi scheme started.

[-] 2 points by warbstar (210) 9 years ago

I love it. JohnWa got the math right. Cool!

[-] 1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Whew! I'm glad to see that you OWS morons are taking back your rightful position as the most extravagant conspiracy theorists. I was a little worried that the one single conservative conspiracy theory (the "birther" controversy) would take top billing for the next year or so. You libs are famous for your conspiracy theories--don't let that title slip!

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

lol... this was awesome... sending the link to this post over to some colleagues at GS. u guys r hilarious. keep it up

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Use your obvious time resources and friend bank to refute it, you slacker weirdo. Or are you just here to leave your shitstain?

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

"Educate yourself." That's good advice. Now why don't the rest of you slackers and lowlifes go and do just that,after all that would be "free".

Here's another idea,why don't you OWS folks that want "free education" start teaching poor people for "free". Teach them how to speak English (so they can better avail themselves of your Liberal welfare state) and also teach them to read,again for "free"? Here ya go,why don't you go wash cars or dishes for "free"? See what it's like to be on the other side of your demands.

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

I'm a self-employed builder of housing and commercial tilt-panel buildings.

I have enough work to employ seventeen regulars and five part-time book-keepers.

What do you do when you're not hanging headless on a cross?

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

@ 'Builder' : I came across this thread rather late but you strike me as a person of intelligence and integrity and as you say (amongst other things!), "I've been doing some research on the Libyan issue", I'd like offer the following links for you and others :

a) Re. Libya, http://occupywallst.org/forum/timeo-pax-americana-oilygarchs-banksters-obomber-l/ ;

b) Re. 'Socialism', http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-defence-of-the-broad-church-of-socialism-from-t/ ;

c) Re. The 2008 'Financial Grand Heist', two excellent documentary films : i) "The Warning" ; http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ & ii) "Inside Job" ; http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ . Inside Job provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse.

d) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/economics/ &

e) http://www.chomsky.info/ .

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Thanks. I've watched Inside Job. Chilling in scope. It seems that prosecution never got past Senate hearings. Is that the case?

Will check out your other links soon. Keep up the good work.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Some senators (mainly from NY) are going after the banks. They're investigating and will try to do what they can to make them pay for what they did.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

Good on you mate ! You're more than welcome.

Re. your question, No Heads have rolled and I don't think that wrists have even been slapped - at least not with the well deserved handcuffs !! Myself, I'd like to teach the Bankster Scum a lesson or two with an piece of used '2x4' with the old nails still left in !!!

On a different note and perhaps even less happily but nevertheless FYI, I also post the following (with some hard facts in the comment thread) : http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-iran-war-war-is-god-by-michael-carmichael/ .

fiat lux ; fiat pax ; fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

bet you pay minumum wage too.. or maybe wow.. 10 bucks an hour

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

This is Australia.

Minimum wage for a tradie is 25 per hour.

I pay what people are worth.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

The people responding to you negatively are typical representations of the abundance of ignorance in the USA. They can't get past their shallow views, as you can see. They assume everything and know nothing. This is the problem we're having here.... too many ignorant, clueless people running around like fools who won't listen to anyone but those who are manipulating them.

And speaking from experience of where you live and how your country runs is not good enough for them!

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

I assume then you are building housing for free and giving freely what you build? You don't charge money do you? After all housing should be a "right". Do your employees all work for free or are they greedy Capitalists?

Do you have the courage of your convictions or do you just blog and rant about Liberal bullshit but live and work like a Capitalist?

[-] 3 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

This is taking extremes instead of a more moderate and logical middle ground. I teach, both for money to survive and also for free in the community. Education should be free, because education is the gateway to upward economic mobility. That is part of what the different GAs are doing across the country, getting together and trying to help meet the needs of the community on their own. Some Occupy groups have pot lucks and eat together, some have teach-ins, some have community gardens, etc. One of the major threads of this movement is learning how to be a community on our own and without relying on multinational corporations to feed us, clothe us, house us, and brainwash us.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

but without an accreditation ,, education is useless without a piece of paper to prove what you know.

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Just because we use our tax money for education instead of funding wars doesn't mean we'll lose our standards.

[+] -4 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

It's obvious to me that you folks aren't relying on multinational corporations to bathe you, either.

[-] 4 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Your comments continue to show your ignorance.

[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

I don't know about that. I walked past a block of "Occupy Cincinnati" protesters and I could smell them from across the street. It wasn't even a warm day!

[+] -5 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

"I teach, both for money to survive" Greedy Capitalist!!! Education should be FREE!!! FREE!!!

[-] -3 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Ha ha! Perfectly stated. I think you just pegged good ol' "Builder". Hypocrisy rules the day from these OWS monkeys. Use your God-given brains, people! Please!!!

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

If you do a little reading of history in the area, the progress of Libya has been nothing short of Phenomenal in Qaddafi's time as has many aspects of Africa's throwing off the cloak of Colonialism. Qaddafi has lead many Afican initiatives to become independent of IMF and its lackies who have milked Africa's wealth.

US blind patriotism may be laudable but is no substitute for investigation and information. What is the point of believing something which has little basis of evidence or fact.

[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

OK, Libya boy. My offer on the one-way ticket to Tripoli remains outstanding.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Thanks for the offer. I have no intention of traveling there but your generosity is noted young fella.

There is a lot more information to be had than what is in the papers and on the news. Looking at both sides of a story is a surer way of getting a perspective than not. There is nothing to loose in a little education at any age but there are many different political opinions which remain fixed in spite of varied new information.

OWS is adding healthy variety.

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

If you are saying that we should open up energy exploration here in America to stimulate the economy then I agree with you.

Education should not be free because things that are free are worthless. Not everyone should have a college education. We need people to clean toilets, work in the fields, work in McDonalds, etc. Why should they waste their time and societies resources getting a worthless degree?

Don't get me wrong, the education system is messed up. Especially how we handle student loans. They are handed out like candy at a parade and we wonder why some many people are crippled by them.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

"things that are free are worthless".

This has to be the goofiest thinking yet.

I hope you didn't pay for that part of your "education."

How do you equate that with living in a free country?

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I paid over $200K for my education, all loans. Then I put my degree to work and paid it back in only a few years because I had a plan. Too many people lack a plan. It is like going to a bank and asking for a large loan for an undecided business with no clear plan to pay it back. It happens every day with student loans but it is laughable if you think of it as a business loan. If someone gets a degree and it is of absolutely no help to them in getting a job, isn't it pretty much worthless?

And if education is free for the students, who is paying for it?

[-] 2 points by Driftless (5) 9 years ago

Congratulations on being able to leverage your college training into a successful enterprise. I do however think it is wrong to compare present day college degrees to what was once considered a university education. The focus has shifted from creating informed, intelligent, and thoughtful citizens to training the next generation of worker bees focused on what they can do to make money. The worth of a degree should not necessarily be measured in dollars and cents but we unfortunately value nothing more than money.

[-] 2 points by Korsen (53) from Fairfield, CT 9 years ago

You're an asshole. Robots could displace 75% of the service industry right now if we wanted. Who is paying for the mandatory public schools? Why are there ads on TV that fool these sorry fucks into believing that the jobs they're training for exist?

You had a plan either because of a hardship in your life, or your parents had two brain cells to rub together. $200K for a dental degree makes you a dumbass. Most of us lack a plan because our systems hand feed us so that when it's actually a serious thing to think for oneself, we have no clue how to do so.

You can't blame the people for trying to live and survive, you have to blame those who hold the responsibility of office. We all know indefinite detention is wrong, but Obama signed the NDAA anyway, didn't he, that educated motherfucker. So shut your fucking mouth

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I agree that hand feeding people in the current systems creates people that can't actually think for themselves.

But how does paying that much for my degree make me a dumbass? I paid it off quickly with no problems and now I am reaping the rewards. Isn't that how it is supposed to work? I actually made out pretty good compared to most of colleagues because I was fortunate enough to get into a state school.

And yes, I have my friendly robot (my CAD/CAM-Cerec milling unit) in my office that has allowed me to cut my lab expenses in half.

[-] 2 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

the problem, is that not eveyone gets lucky like you. We all make plans, but sometimes shit happens. What would have happened if you got some girl pregnant(if ur a girl, then if u got pregnant)? What about a death in the family that left you broke? Or a sick parent needing care? You got so lucky, and you decry the work of others that have shit happen to them as lazy. FUCK YOU!

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

So all successful people are lucky and unsuccessful ones are unlucky?

I think there is a lot more to it than luck, though it certainly doesn't hurt.

[-] 3 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

I think, that is all it comes down to. Gambling is the name of the game, and some people get a win, some get a loss. Obviously there are exceptions, but overall, most people want to be succesful, self sufficient individuals. No one wants to have to beg for handouts, but shit happens. If it hasn't happened to you, good for you, like I said, u got lucky.


[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 9 years ago

Right on!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

See about getting a refund, it didn't work.

All that money and you still can't think for yourself, nor answer a simple question.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I don't see how relying on the government (ie other citizens) to pay for your higher education is part of living in a free country. Unless you mean 'free' in the monetary sense.

Look at all the unemployed people with college degrees. Then you see plumbers and the like who never went to college charging $200 an hour for labor. College is overrated. People need to develop skills that are in demand, whether it is through college, trade school, a good work ethic, or just natural ingenuity.

There is simply no demand for a lot of the degrees college students get and that, coupled with the ease of getting student loans, is creating this loan crisis.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

they were not unemployed 4 yrs ago they and you i suppose should have had a plan of what to do when the economy collapsed? it is the corporate welfare recipients that created this situation where this is even a discussion.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I work in a pretty stable industry thankfully but yeah, it is not unreasonable to have a plan for an economic downturn.

The point I was making is that a lot of college degrees are not worth what people pay for them, and that can create a lot of problems with student debt that never really goes away.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

true,, thankfully obama passed a law that says if you make less than 14k a year you do not have to pay them back. now that the economy is tanked... there will be a lot more people making less than 14k

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

That is not necessarily a good thing for everyone. Those do pay off their loans may ultimately end up paying a higher interest rate due to an increase in those who default.

A lot of these problem loans should be prevented in the first place to really solve the problem.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

The dichotomy in your thinking is clear to me.

You still can't answer a simple question.

Guess you should have taken that $200 an hour plumbing job.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

What was the question? I thought it was about education being part of a free country?

And why is it that people on here automatically attack people instead of having a conversation? It is like watching a GOP debate.

I could never be a plumber. Those nasty clumps of soap and hair make me dry heave. I can drain abscessed teeth all day but those hair clumps just kill me.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Training in tooth draining is not the same as being able to think.

I'll restate the question.

You claim that free things are "worthless".

You live in a "free" country.

How do you equate the two?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

Free has several meanings. #2 below refers to what we call ourselves as a free country. #9 is what one means when something is free of charge.

So many people are already getting degrees that are worthless. By allowing everyone to go to college for free, those with worthless degrees will skyrocket unless we also dictate what they study. And then we would no longer be a "free" country.

free (friː)

— adj (and foll by from ) , freer , freest

  1. able to act at will; not under compulsion or restraint
  2. a. having personal rights or liberty; not enslaved or confined b. ( as noun ): land of the free
  3. not subject (to) or restricted (by some regulation, constraint, etc); exempt: a free market ; free from pain
  4. (of a country, etc) autonomous or independent
  5. exempt from external direction or restriction; not forced or induced: free will
  6. not subject to conventional constraints: free verse
  7. (of jazz) totally improvised, with no preset melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic basis
  8. not exact or literal: a free translation
  9. costing nothing; provided without charge: free entertainment
  10. of property law a. not subject to payment of rent or performance of services; freehold b. not subject to any burden or charge, such as a mortgage or lien; unencumbered
  11. ( postpositive; often foll by of or with ) ready or generous in using or giving; liberal; lavish: free with advice
  12. unrestrained by propriety or good manners; licentious
  13. not occupied or in use; available: a free cubicle
  14. not occupied or busy; without previous engagements: I'm not free until Wednesday
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Copy and paste, is not the same as thinking.

If schooling were free of most charges, as I feel it should be, your issue would go away.

People would have a well rounded education.

From president, to plumber.

It's something, you seem to lack.

Perhaps we need the "liberty" of a free education.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

Yo shloozer,who pays for the "free" schooling? And how high should the taxes be to pay for all this free shit? You Leftists never think about money when you purpose all these wonderful Utopian ideas. You just default to "blame and tax the rich" and "blame the Republicans" but never blame yourselves for being clueless and ignorant of reality.

[-] 3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Actually, capitalism works better when everyone gets health care, schooling, welfare, etc... paid for by the government. There's nothing worse for capitalism than a bright young mind lost because one couldn't afford school, the body of a young abled worker dying because one could not afford health care, or a person who doesn't have the means to implement his great idea because he doesn't receive help from the government.

Paying schooling for everyone with taxes is an investment. It means the next generation will be smarter overall which is turn will mean more profit for the nation.

The republican way of capitalism does not work. Look at Bush, he destroyed your economy.

Look at Canada. It's doing good.

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 9 years ago

still blaming bush? obama has been the president for the last 3 years.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago



[-] 2 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

Your presumption is incorrect. BTW This is not an issue of Left or right, not that you could tell the two apart anyway. School could easily be free if we did not give away our resources to corporations to exploit at no benefit to ourselves. Nor do we need to pay so much for our wars. It is the cost of R&D done by private corporations, instead of our own government, that costs so much. We squander what we have supporting completely lucrative businesses(IE The oil industry, farming, banking, etc) at the expense of the common worker, and we allow small tyrannies to exist in the form of corporations, run top down at the behest of an individual who usually does absolutely nothing productive, and gets paid a ridiculous amount for it. Look at our supposed leaders. Rick Perry was allowed to leave his state for the better part of a year to campaign, not even leaving his lieutenant Gov behind, he was out campaigning too, and yet he already is collecting a pensionand a salary. What work did he do to run the state of Texas????? Why was he allowed to waste their tax money to do this??? That is how corrupt our system is. We don't even blink at the amount of money wasted so some fools can think they might get to president. And what happens to Texas during all this? Wild fires, Storms, record highs. Were was Perry? Enjoying the fruits of his wage slaves labors, while professing his love of family, god, country, and electability. Of course he love his country. What other would allow him to basically call hard working people lazy based on their earning, earning that he and his fellow 1% made sure were to low to be mobile on. That dependence on their "good" graces makes us unable to pursue better lives, filled with actual family, and learning, and growth.

Instead we all toil away to afford what should be ours by right, paid for by our forefathers, maintained by us, for our children. Its time to get the greedy bastards out, and get rid of the Sheeple. U like tyranny? Go somewhere else, and see how long you will like living in a destructive society. Let the rest of us coexist as we can do, without the interference of pesky religions, corporate interests, and rich fucks who are morally bankrupt.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Too many parasites with enormous appetites and no regards for others.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

I appreciate your effort in replying to me. You are free to express your opinion. I just happen to disagree with much if not all that you've written.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago


Here's a dose.


Ooooooops.......................There went another school.

Oh, and cost of an MX missile, or the flight of an F22.

Another couple of minutes and we've paid for the teachers too, all the way through retirement.

(R)epublicans did all that.

Ooooops there went another school.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

So really the schooling is not free. It is just that someone else is paying for it.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 9 years ago

Yeah you're right,fuck national defense. The USA don't need it. Let's have a population of well educated dead people that ended up dying in war brought to you by your good friends the Chi Comms and your pals radical Islam. That would be imminently more preferable.

Ooooooops........................There goes another fallacious Leftist boondoggle.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

"I don't see how relying on the government (ie other citizens) to pay for your higher education is part of living in a free country. Unless you mean 'free' in the monetary sense."

Do you think everyone putting into the pot and then benefitting from that pot is relying on the government or on other citizens? It's called sharing and taking care of each other. Everyone adds to the pot, and then everyone gets from the pot.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

We already all do add to the pot and take away from it. I am just saying we shouldn't have to add even more to the pot so people can go to college for free.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who even object to funding increases for our K-12 programs. Advocating for free higher education will likely turn more of the 99% away from Occupy.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

"Education should not be free because things that are free are worthless. Not everyone should have a college education. We need people to clean toilets, work in the fields, work in McDonalds, etc. Why should they waste their time and societies resources getting a worthless degree?"

Wow... if that isn't a fucked up view, I don't know what is.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

This thinking is a product of dis-education.

A product of misunderstanding what an education is for.

A kind of thinking, that ALL education should be a form of trade school.

A confusion between education and training.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Reducing energy use would make much more sense and restructuring to a sustainable economy not based on vulnerable transport.

Of course education should be free as should air and water.

Do we need a group of parasites feeding off the rest and holding a position of massive wealth.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

K-12 education is already "free" in the sense that students don't pay for it. Where does education stop? Should everyone get a PhD on the backs of the taxpayers?

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

If opportunity for all is to be realized then education should not have barriers. Investment in the people is for the future of our society.

The backs of the tax payers are already heavily loaded with nearly 3 billion a day for military adventure. On top of that the debt based money system feeds massive wealth to a very small part of the population.

Where is the future and what are human priorities.

Do you see an answer under the present system of class embedded wealth.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I agree we spend too much on the military but shifting that money to free higher education is not the answer. Give it back to the middle class instead.

Maybe increase the number of government scholarships available for jobs in demand. Hand them out on a competitive basis. But to have the government pay for someone to go to a small liberal arts college and get a degree in something useless is an obvious waste of money.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Rationalization of education will always be an ongoing discussion I agree. The models we have for education may not be the most beneficial as much is based on competition instead of what may be best for the people and communities we live in.

People learn at different rate and academic learning at a high level may not suit many so some selection on abilities of the person and suitability of the study makes sense.

There is a wider picture here of why education is beneficial for the whole of society. We have grown used to a wasteful elitist system which has divided and excluded.

Greater cohesion and community responsibility starts with people having a stake in things.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

You say some good things here. One thing I noticed in college was kids who did not actually want to be there, but their parents forced them to because otherwise they would not be able to get a decent job. That's fundamentally wrong, in my opinion. With a high school diploma, any person should be capable of getting a job that can support him/her.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

should.. but if you look at the job requirement.. it says bachelors degree. whose fault is that ? the corporations. so why shouldnt they pay the tax for schooling?

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Exactly! If we had tax equality we'd have tons of money to use on education.


[-] -3 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

You might find the oil profits have something to do with Libya's handouts to the people. The US doesn't have the resources to pay for your education.

Confiscate every asset that the top 100 rich people have in the US, not their income, but everything they own. It comes to just enough to play one year of our deficit. Education would be a good thing but someone has to pay for it.

[-] 6 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

What a misanthropic way to look at things ...

If on the other hand, we taxed the rich at progressively higher rates, say pre-Reagan rates of 70-90%, we would be flush with tax revenue which could be put straight back into society via infrastructure rebuilding, alternative energy, etc., all of which directly creates private sector jobs, all of which generates more tax revenue.

This would be a return to the economic golden age of America between 1945 and 1980, when we paid down depression and WWII debt from 120% of GDP to near 30%, while simultaneously building a nationwide infrastructure, putting men on the moon with a huge, thriving middle class enjoying the most stable period of sustained economic growth in history.

[-] 5 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Yes, exactly right.

Why is it so hard for people to see this now? The system worked perfectly, before greed and then criminality took it down to the level we have now.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

The people have been mind washed by the media controlled by one group. Coordinated fear based on lies has been added to the mass hysteria generated by pseudo patriotic clap trap feed to most political rallies and speeches.

The real situation is never mentioned so we like and discuss lies and crap which provides a smoke screen for the corporate bankers who are pretty much immune to all but widespread revolt. Keeping the public dumb and loyal to party systems is a control device. Less than half the people vote and they want to keep it that way.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

There are too many ignorant and greedy people here. Most don't know shit about any of it, and they refuse to learn it.... yet they think they have the knowledge to intelligently make comments about it. It's a fucking epidemic, I tell you.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

and with more regulation in the right places that helped make all that happen.... the very regulation that was stripped, which then put things into a tailspin..... starting with Reagan

[-] 1 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Absolutely! Well said!

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

It would certainly be a start. I just don't believe there are enough rich people to cover the $1.2 or 1.3 trillion per year we overspend.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

there was never a trillion overspent until the occupation of iraq. how is it that no one can remember that. it is this fascination with occupying the middle east that has the deficit up to the trillions. not education or healthcare or anything else just the quest for world domination.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

We've been spending more then we take in for decades. With deficits growing. I don't care what or who you blame. Medicare, the military, Medicaid, and Social Security are our biggest outlays. We need to cut or tax, maybe some of each. Fixing blame on Bush or Reagan or Obama doesn't fix the problem or make the hard choices any easier.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

It IS deregulation of the banking industry that lead to this mess. The regulations (those that were repealed starting with Reagan) were, along with other things that have been mentioned by others, what kept the USA in the best economy in its history after the Great Depression and up until the Reagan years. Denying that it all started with Reagan and telling people to stop placing blame is being completely ignorant and irresponsible. Learn the facts, please.

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

Deregulation has given us the current downturn, but that's not our only difficulty. Since 1940 we have had only 12 years where we ran a surplus. Removing regulations has created a different problem making financial markets more volatile and allowing for more corruption. I see running massive deficits as the more serious long term problem with increased social spending and military spending and no willingness to pay for them.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

you are incorrect. during clinton there was a balanced budget.. no deficit. it was not until the government started spending a billion a month in iraq that the the problem began.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

Yes for 4 years, 1998 to 2001. You'll notice I didn't list him. Getting out of the middle east would certainly be a good start.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Defense and military spending and our military empire could be reduced significantly, and that would pay for a lot.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

I agree, we'd still need to tax a little more, but it would be an easier pill to swallow.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

As much of the overspending is debt to the bankers and expenses run up with international military US terrorism globally run for the bankers, then one solution would be educate the people to run a better system for people not vampire bankers.

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

It shouldn't need much more education then looking at the tax receipts and then looking at what you want to spend. If the second number is bigger, you either collect more taxes or spend less. If you don't borrow then the banker doesn't enter into the picture. You can't blame the bankers for all our national foolishness.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Do you know how the Federal reserve generates money that the people pay for ?

Have you every looked at the fractional banking system and how banks create money out of thin air and we pay for it.

Money is created out of debt to this privately owned bank. This money is then used by banks to loan out as much as nine times as much all with interest and repayment usually with more debt created.

Balancing a budget means cuts but cuts are not applied to the area of military spending. The industrial military industry would not stand for it. The voter in not in control.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

Then taxes need to go up or we keep foolishly borrowing money from others.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

I agree about taxing to pay for the services necessary to run a society well.

Debt though is a part of how we allow money to be created through privately owned banks.

Abraham Lincoln fought the banks as have other Presidents. Banks are parasites institutions that are now controlling Govts.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

They are certainly part of the problem, but people ignore problems as they develop then shift all the blame on one institution for everything. We are as much a part of the problem as banks, corrupt politicians, or corporations.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

You are right. Lincoln felt the full force of his opposition to the banks. Democracy has enemies within our borders.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Wishful thinking. If you taxed the rich at such high rates, capital will simply move out of the country, overtly or covertly. Mobility of people and capital is far easier now than it was at any time in the past. In fact if taxes were that high than boards would be forced to allow even higher salaries for managers just so they stayed with the firm. Else even the managers would seek employment in a different country. Take me as an example, I work in the financial sector and so far haven't been laid off. But if I were to be laid off, I would try and get another job in Wall St but if it didn't work out I would not think much before moving to London or better still Hong Kong or Singapore. The same holds for most American CEOs and managers. it's pretty easy to move out.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Bullshit. It's a global recession, soon to be a global depression. Your job will be just as superfluous in London or Hong Kong as it is here.

Taxing people at high rates would prevent their over-accumulation of capital, allowing it to be put into infrastructure, debt reduction, technology development, etc., just like it was after WWII when the top tax rate was 70-90% and we paid off most of the depression and WWII debt while building a nationwide infrastructure and huge, thriving middle class.

How amusing that self-serving anti-tax retards conveniently ignore these facts ...

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Unless you are an economist of international repute, I would disagree with you opinion that "higher taxation helped us wade through great depression"

I would rather side with Cary Brown of MIT. He said "The primary failure of fiscal policy to be expansive in this period is attributable to the sharp increases in tax structures enacted at all levels of government. Total government purchases of goods and services expanded virtually every year, with federal expansion especially marked in 1933 and 1934. [But] the federal Revenue Act of 1932 virtually doubled full employment tax yields…

…the highly deflationary impact of this tax law has not been fully appreciated…The Revenue Act of 1932 pushed up rates virtually across the board, but notably on the lower and middle income groups….Personal income tax exemptions were slashed, the normal-tax as well as surtax rates were sharply raised, and the earned-income credit equal to 25 percent of taxes on low income was repealed. Less drastic changes were made in the corporate income tax, but its rate was raised slightly and a $3000 exemption eliminated. Estates tax rates were pushed up, exemptions sharply reduced, and a gift tax was provided. Congress toyed with a manufacturers’ sales tax, but finally rejected it in favor of a broad new list of excise taxes and substantially higher rates for old ones…." http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811908

As for this recession being a global one, well the effect is far less in emerging economies and Asia. They are doing pretty well. I would know better. Don't you think?

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Did you even read the post?

Taxing people at high rates would prevent their over-accumulation of capital, allowing it to be put into infrastructure, debt reduction, technology development, etc., just like it was after WWII when the top tax rate was 70-90% and we paid off most of the depression and WWII debt while building a nationwide infrastructure and huge, thriving middle class.

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

Try again: POST WAR tax rates.

Sheeesh, what a moron. "smart" capitalist my ass.

[+] -5 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

And what i m telling you my dear enlightened intelligent soul is that raising taxes would put us deeper into a recession. Hence I gave you those links. Seriously man...

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago


In the 1920's, there was a steep drop in the individual tax rate for top earners. This was followed by a steep INCREASE in unemployment in the mid-to-late 20's.

in 1942 unemployment rates reached their lowest level (1.2%) when individual tax rates were at their highest (94%). In 1942, tax rates for the wealthy hit 94% and stayed in the 90's until the mid 1960s. During this time, unemployment remained low and stable, averaging 4.98%.

For over 20 years the tax rates for the top earners were at their highest and unemployment was at it's lowest. This period, from 1942 to 1962, is historically seen as one of great prosperity.

Finally, with tax rates at historic lows, we have persistent high unemployment. Lowering taxes further will only withdraw more money from the economy by exacerbating over-accumulation by the already far too rich, who sock the money away in financial vehicles that generate neither taxes nor jobs.


[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

" Lowering taxes further will only withdraw more money from the economy by exacerbating over-accumulation by the already far too rich" - I see. The rich do not build a huge safe like Uncle Scroge and fill it will coins and swim in it. They put their money in banks, in mutual funds, hedge funds, PE and VC funds. These create jobs and bolsters the economy. If you taxed 90%, most of the money would go to the government and the government does not invest in PE, VC, mutual or hedge funds. The government has a pretty dismal track record of creating jobs too. Besides, when all the money of the rich will be taxed out, liquidity in the markets will drop and interest rates on loans will be sky high. Now that's economics.

But I am sure you won't agree to any of it.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

DeludedCapitalist would be a more fitting name for you.

VC firms for the most part are like Bain Capital, they buy, strip, gut, outsource and resell, creating nothing but maximum profit at the cost of jobs and livelihoods.

Hedge funds typically make money by shorting or betting against various things, not creating them from scratch or building them up.

Mutual funds and stocks just trade paper for profit, and in fact are used more to create profit for their managers than they are for investors, who often get tax consequences without the benefit of any gains.

The government remains the country's largest employer and indirectly employs millions more in the private sector through contracting, so that is just more bullshit on your part.

You still have not countered the historical facts of the post WW2 tax structure and the benefits of it, all of which have been utterly lost with the massive reduction in tax rates.

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

Nucleus - Given that so many of your comments are thoughtful and provocative, I thought you would appreciate a slight correction from me, a semi-retired, youngish, professional investor and member of the 1%.

VC funds, in their truest form, are not like Bain Capital, which is really closer to a Private Equity or LBO fund. VC funds invest (bottom-up approach) in start-up ventures and consult on the growth of that venture, which is good for job creation. Private Equity or LBO, on the other hand, is more of a top-down approach that looks for existing large business that can be restructured to the favor of the PE or LBO fund managers first, then the fund's investors and then the remaining stakeholders of the restructuring target.

It's the PE or LBO guys that, in order to justify their restructuring activities, peddle the argument that their immediate job eliminating activities ultimately create more future jobs. This argument usually has cover in the form of well compensated and well pedigreed economists who write long papers with lots of complicated math and economic theories which basically say that losing the 100,000 jobs today is okay and even necessary because it will result in more people being employed in the future. These papers are very valuable because they help the dealmakers get the deal done and assuage any remaining guilt that the money made on the deal didn't. I know, the new jobs haven't materialized yet. Just be patient, it's a long and complicated process. The next deal might help with that,

In summary, be less afraid of VC. They are probably the truest of capitalists in the banking and finance industry. Their gain is tied to the growth of the target company (positive employment) and their losses are their own, nobody else's.

As far as "smartcapitalist" goes, when he starts with the socialist, hippie, occuwhatever name calling you'll know you've got him backed into a corner. Unfortunately, you just won't grow all that much from having an exchange with him.

He writes, "government does not invest in PE, VC, mutual or hedge funds"

That's correct, they just provide trillions of dollars in life support to failed banks that were and still run by sociopathic losers who've never entered into deal with their own money.

You and any other OWSers are welcome to private message me, a finance practitioner, with any inquiries about the workings of banking, finance, etc. I'm happy to educate non-practitioners about these institutions and the charlatans that work in and run them whose unchecked behavior has done so much damage to our great nation.

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Oh, so you want a socialist country where government creates all the job. Good luck. I don't really fancy USA to become United American Socialist Republic. And please cut the crap about funds not creating jobs. tell that to the Occutards fools and not me.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

im replying to your post below. so you are saying that there have been 500k high skilled jobs created in the last 4 years that there are just not enough highskilled workers available. that each college grad in america that have lost jobs was ? low skilled? I dont see that in reality.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Exactly what skills does 'every college kid' have? Getting a liberal arts degree does not prepare one for anything. The jobs that have moved outside are the low skilled routine jobs, most in manufacturing, IT services and BPO.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

if that were true.. why has there been, with the 42% increase in wealth of the rich, an elimination of 500k + jobs. what you say makes no sense in the face of the facts. obviously they have not invested in anything that creates jobs but in things that destroy jobs or have put the money in banks offshore but most assuredly they have not invested in anything that creates jobs.. with that philosophy jobs would have increased by at least 42% in the last 4 years.. more propaganda

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Depends on which jobs you talk about. There are high skilled jobs readily available but low skilled ones have moved out to Asia and parts of Europe. Besides, with many industries (like software etc) you don't necessarily require doubling your work force if you wanted to double your production or market share. And most companies have invested in expansion abroad particularly in emerging economies.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

It doesn't matter if you move out of the USA. Wherever in the world you work, as long as you are a U.S. citizen, you STILL pay income taxes to the USA. Moving somewhere else doesn't mean shit. You could move to the moon, and it wouldn't matter. Learn the facts, please.

You're not very informed.... for someone who uses the name "smartcapitalist".

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

The amount of taxation depends on a variety of factors. Do go thru the IRS guidelines on the same



[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

and what you think there are only a few of you? there are a million who would kill for even a reduced salary job on wall street.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Haha. I am sure there are a million people who would love Wall St salaries (like the OWS hippies) but there are NOT a million people who have the brains or the skills and certainly not the professional discipline to put in 90-100 hours a week on a job. Most of you guys whine that your 60 hour work week is unfair. Hey, I do 60 hrs in half the week.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

do you really believe that? you really think there are only a spare few that would and can do your job? your ego has blinded you i think besides. you implied in your post that there has been an investment in the corporate world to match the greedy 1% to equal the job creation to the increase of thier wealth of 42% you should not have any worries.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Yes I do. If nothing else, the fact that we have to go as far as India to fill our positions make me sure of that. Trading and/or Investment banking is not everyone's cup of tea.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

damn dude, every time i hear you brag about your servitude, the hours multiply. Now, it is a hundred and twenty, you win you are the slave. Free will is a bitch. Though the time you spend here and the time needed to socialize with friends and loved ones, makes me believe you are bull shitting. Unless your job is to run interference here in the aether world.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Yeah I am bullshitting (and whr did i say 120?). I am actually a homeless guy sitting in the subway at Wall st and writing this to you on my ipad that some generous guy tossed at me.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

my bad, you said, the "discipline to put in 90-100 hours a week on a job." But you did say that you do sixty in a half a week, and me believing that you are a go getter, I assumed you worked the whole week. And i remember that about three weeks ago you said you work eighty hours a week. By your standard eighty hours a week is for pussies. But I guess if you worked sixteen hours a day, five days a week, you could do eighty, but that kinda leaves me flabbergasted as to how you spend so much time here every day.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

A lot of people don't believe in ripping others off to make millions of dollars.... because money just isn't that important to them.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

No. They believe in camping in parks and harassing people and business around, shitting 200lbs of crap in the park, fornicating in public and raping, assaulting people

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

A point, there is no reason we could not nationalize the oil profits of America, or the other national resources we let the lowest bidder take from the masses, to only sell it back to us at a premium.This would more than pay for a solid education for everyone, and healthcare. Take these two out of the equation, and life is pretty damn peachy in the US. Make Public office a service again, and not a privilege bought by the rich, and we might have a chance at a government for the people, of the people.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

My original comment was in response to someone asking why Libya has free education and we don't, they decided to use their oil money for it. We as a nation spend on other things. You can pass any law that you're able to get a majority in favor of. Nationalizing industries in the US is not likely to be possible under our current laws though, and the environmentalists have been against opening up more of our resources for sale or exploration.

At the end of the day I don't care what you spend money on, as long as you get a majority to agree that the cause is a good one and actually raise the money before you spend it.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

We live in a finite world and the more exploitation of natural resources that is allowed now than the smaller the surviving human race will be.

We are in overshoot on so many levels and this is ignored by corporate economist as the profit short term is the agenda.

The environment and biosphere is the future.

Education is not competing with anything other than human endeavor to make a better world. Education is far more important that riches for a few and a broken future for all species.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

There isn't any going back to a less mechanized time, you can't feed everyone with a horse and buggy economy. We may race off the cliff and destroy our civilization or when the need is great enough we may finally develop other forms of energy. We'll exploit the tar sands and oil shale next. Maybe if those are expensive enough some effort will be spent on other energy sources. Of course there is no guarantee there is anything that could take oil's place and the whole thing could fall apart anyhow.

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

"you can't feed everyone with a horse and buggy economy"

Are you saying that people are incapable of relearning to sustain themselves.... without consuming crap from greedy corporations? That's exactly what it sounds like to me. What did people do BEFORE corporations existed? Oh... that's right.... they did things for themselves or found skilled people in the community to help them out. We don't need corporations to survive. It's all a game for those on top who are raking in the money to brainwash people into thinking like that.

I know what I will do..... learn to be as sustainable on my own as I can be. It might take some time, but that's my goal.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

Sorry I wasn't clear, what I'm saying is in order to feed the population we now have we need modern, mechanized farming. In 1900 just over 40% of the population was involved in agriculture, feeding a population of 76 million. By 2000 it was just under 2% of the people are engaged in agriculture feeding 280 million. Population today is at 312 million and I have no reason to think the number of farm workers has increased.

The modern corporation may be what lured people off the farms, with the promise of work, but corporations or our buying habits had nothing to do with my statement. People could certainly relearn to farm, if the land were made available and you forced them to move back to farms. However if people were allowed to stay or go where they wish, 2% of the population can not feed 98% without modern farm equipment.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

You appear to be living on hope of continuing the present path.

The overshoot of human activity and population extends to numerous facets of exploitation, overpopulation, dwindling natural resources, destruction of forests, sea harvest, soil structure and arable land, rising sea level, polluted air and water, growing scarcity of many materials, sources of fossil energy, changing climate and loss of species.

Much of this will not be undone in many generations, thousands of years or 100s of millions in the case of mineral formation.

Exploiting oil further will be catastrophic to the biosphere. The tar sands must remain in place or we will push the temperature rise over the edge to a tipping point of runaway consequences beyond prediction ability of the science community. Already America has contributed greater destruction to the biosphere and wastage of resources per head of population that any other country in the world. We have responsibility for a large part of the mess.

Our human expansion from 2 billion to 7 billion in a lifetime has ridden on the exploitation of cheap energy. Cheap in as much as it has been easy to exploit but now it will have increasing cost as the easy stuff has gone. When the extraction of a barrel of oil takes more energy than is in a barrel of oil then oil is no longer an energy source. Peak uranium is well past. Solar capture and harnessing wind still require massive exploitation of mineral resources and cannot sustain our present energy use and wastage.

The crisis of man's exploitation of resources and expansion has been known for more that 40 years with extensive research done in the early 70s. Instead of planning for sustainability we have ruthlessly supported waste with consumerism which has brought high profits for a few and degraded our environment and future.

To gain a better understanding of this it is worth researching for personal learning . The future of our grandchildren looks bleak.

Intelligent cooperative planning need to replace the wasteful market mantra we are fed as the answer.

We need to reduce our energy demand and live more simply planning for lower energy designs in our living and supply of food.

We are wasting precious time and the longer we go on our nusiness as usual path then the less will be left for future generations and the small the surviving human population will be.

What is our priority, greed and excess for now or a better chance for out future generations.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

People don't plan for the long term. I'm not optimistically saying tomorrow will be a better day, and some as yet unknown science will save us. I'm saying we can't feed the population we have with a horse and buggy economy, and we will most likely continue on our present thoughtless path and face extinction at some point.

We should do what you suggest, but it's more likely we won't, there will be enough voters that don't live near tar sands or oil shale and want that oil. They'll see it as workable for several generations and then it's someone else's problem.

[-] 2 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

When did anyone say anything about horse and buggy? Your extreme rendition of a fix is ridiculous. What we need is to invest in sustainable energy now, while we still have the ability to use oil while the transition takes place. As far as oil being indespensible, that is only due to the oil industry itself, and propaganda that you obviously eat up. Oil is not even as efficient as many other sources of energy right now, let alone what we may come up with in the future. Our children and grandchildren should not get screwed because we are too lazy now.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

It's an expression I've used to refer to going backwards at all in terms of technology, sorry. I see it as becoming dependent on the technology we develop and being forced forward. True hydrogen delivers more energy, but it lacks the convenience of gasoline. Other technologies lack the infrastructure at present.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

You are right. The problem will be shifted to our children and their children.

That is why action must be a priority now. The knowledge of what is happening is widely avaliable.

That is in part what OWS is about. An uprising of many people who know we are on the wrong path.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

but isnt it true that islamic's do not educate women,, that means there is a small population using this free education

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

I don't know how they did things in Libya as far as women are concerned under Gaddafi or how the new government will do them. The original post asked why the have free education and we don't, I assumed it's how they wis to spend part of their oil money.

[+] -4 points by YouDontRepresentThe99Percent (-10) 9 years ago

Yeah have the rich pay for you, that just screams handout...

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Only if you accept the corporate propaganda.

We don't have to run a debt based money system to suit the banker group and their massive extraction of wealth from the nation.

Where do you think their money comes from. Handouts from every dollar circulating and most transactions.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 9 years ago

I'm indifferent as to what we do or don't spend money on as a nation. All I would really be after is that we decide it through the political process and make sure we pay for what we want without borrowing.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

We don't have to borrow. That is a choice to allow continued reliance on a proven Ponzi system which cannot continue forever or even much longer.

[-] -3 points by FarIeymowat (49) 9 years ago

You have a seriously fucked up thought process. Using too many street drugs?

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Those facts you are touting about libya are totally wrong. That particular article has been debunked by a libyan blogger himself.

[-] 6 points by RioLuna (7) 9 years ago

I don't know about Libya, but I've lived in African countries that do indeed have free health care and free education. As the earlier poster says, why not. Why should a country that calls itself civilized turn anyone away from either because of money? The U$ government spends trillions on unprovoked wars that enrich corporations like Halliburton, provides enormous govt. subsidies to needy corporations like Exxon, surely they could make health care and education available to all.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

The US government spends trillions...

The last half of your comment I agree with completely.

[-] 3 points by warbstar (210) 9 years ago

Actually they have spent about 5 trillion in the last five years on war related activities.

[-] 3 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Ouch... I bet five trillion dollars could go a long way in helping our public education system...

[-] 4 points by warbstar (210) 9 years ago

FYI. Here is the URL where I collected the budget information:


For each year, I calculated total expense by including defense, HS, CIA, cost of warmongering, and more. The total comes to about 1 trillion for each of the last five years. It turns out that the number on item in U.S. Government spending is all defense and war mongering related. It accounts for about 28% of total spending. After that is SS and HHS in that order. The leaders are intentionally and maliciously lying when they say the budget overruns are causes by entitlements.

The facts prove that the overruns are caused by US warmongering throughout the world.

This is the primary reason why I am at war with the US government. The rules are that I use truth as a lever and justice as a fulcrum. It is like using truth as a bullet in a gun. I’m learning how to hit my targets now.

For example, Maveric.com has POS software with known (very serious) bugs that cause employees to be short in their register. All of management is aware of the multiple bugs, and they know the problem is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because, they have many unethical managers that will become irritated with employees who experience the bug. Then they will fabricate reports to harm an employee’s reputation and employability. Thus, Maveric.com treats their employees as disposable resources. To fight back I am informing the competition, Top Stop, Walkers, and Holiday convenience stores of their serious bug and ethical problem. Doing so gives Maverik’s competition a major competitive advantage.

In this way, truth is the bullet, and the gun is justice. Maverik management gets their but kicked by the competition, both of which are sets of unethical managers that will now go to war against each other.

As I refine this war strategy by testing it on the 1%, I develop new strategies for attacking the US government using the same rules.

It works exceptionally well.

[-] 1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Actually, probably not. You can't buy a sense of responsibility in a society that encourages freeloading. You can't buy ambition in a community that frowns upon, and punishes, success. You can't buy parental involvement in a child's education, and God knows you can't buy brains.

[-] 3 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

This is a lot of general statements that are only true in some cases. It absolutely is true that if public schools offered teachers a decent wage then more people would go into education. Given, you can't just throw money at a problem and expect that to fix it. You have to have a supportive infrastructure to put the money to good use and not let it fall into someone's pocket through corruption. But basically everything you're saying is wrong, or at least it is not 100% right, because my own experience is the exception. I know for certain that if I had had smaller class sizes going through school that I would have benefited more from my public education. Instead we were always overcrowded and my teachers had to spend their time babysitting. In every society there are people who jump on opportunities that I would consider freeloading or taking advantage of others. There are also lots of good people who did not reach their academic potential because of a drained and corrupt system.

[-] -2 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

You just identified the problem--we're throwing money--lots and lots and lots of money per student, at the "problem," and guess what--the kids aren't learning! Because lots of societies do better in educating their kids with a lot less money, it means we are flushing money down the toilet. Our unionized teachers are much more interested in social engineering and raising a bunch of brain-dead, politically-correct sheep than they are in teaching the three R's. Our parents don't take their kids' education seriously. Our kids haven't been taught the value of working hard and reaping rewards from succeeding. The whole situation is a liberal's wet dream. We are creating a generation of soon-to-be welfare recipients (which, of course, translates into more votes for democrats once those little numbskulls turn 18).

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23464) 9 years ago

Teachers are not the problem. Teachers are the heroes. The folks who write the curriculum at a very high level and make ridiculous demands on teachers are the problem.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 9 years ago

"Teachers are the heroes." Yet another union slogan.

Exceptionally good teachers are heroes. Good teachers are valued mentors. Bad teachers should be fired.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23464) 9 years ago

Yes, of course, bad teachers should be fired. But, overall, teachers are not the problem with the education system. I wasn't even thinking of unions, BonTon.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 9 years ago

The inability of school districts to get rid of ineffective teachers is part of the problem with the education system. It's called tenure. It typically kicks in after a mere 3 yrs employment. It's got nothing to do with educating kids, and it's the fault of unions. No other industry has such absurd job protections. Get rid of tenure, untie the hands of administrators to get rid of the lousy teachers, and you'll have taken a big step in the right direction.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 9 years ago

So get rid of the administrators if they're not doing a good job. Same for lousy teachers. Not too complicated.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23464) 9 years ago

I'm on the fence about tenure. In my district, I'd actually like to see some of the administrators go.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

My, my Rush, you're back on your daily dosage, aren't you?

Or are you just a child that got left behind?

[-] 2 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Your comments are a typical rant from someone who can't step away from the status quo and who loves to serve their masters. The percentage of people in society who truly want to free load are a very small percentage..... and our society does not encourage free loading. I'd like to see evidence of that from you. There are many other countries that give their citizens way more social benefits than we have, and yet they are the most successful countries with the highest levels of education, the lowest levels of crime, the lowest levels of poverty, the highest standards of living, the highest levels of happy citizens, etc.

[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Pardon me. Democrats encourage freeloading. The more people who suckle at the teet of government, the more dependency is created, the more people are likely to want to keep the spigot of government (i.e., my) money flowing to them. I definitely don't want the status quo to continue--I'd like to see the liberal freeloaders and big-government vampires keep their greedy little hands off my pocketbook.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

And I'd kinda like the corporations, keep theirs off of mine.

I'd like them to get fuck out of my government too.

Federal, State and Local...................Period!

[-] -1 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

OK bucko. Now's your big chance--complete carte blanche here: How exactly are corporations negatively impacting your life--other than by providing you with your iphone, your starbucks coffee and your patchouli--all at reasonable prices? Hmmmmm? Fool.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

easy, their welfare checks are bankrupting our nation.

[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Now Jesse, in fairness, I owe "shooz" the opportunity to respond. However, if you're speaking on the issue, I would say to you: "Is that all you got?" When you look at the breakdown of federal expenditures, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that welfare checks to the people are bankrupting the taxpayers (including corporations)?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

In true trickle down fashion, the Corporations get way more in subsidies and tax credits than any single mother or all the welfare recipients combined. If you count tax credits, corporations are not paying their fair share. Besides, If welfare checks for low income people are so prevalent in our nation, then that means the private sector has dropped the ball on its job creating function.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I don't have any of those...........................!

Not one.

Don't want 'em either.

What part of what I actually posted do you misunderstand?

Why the invective?

[-] 0 points by ombp2 (12) 9 years ago

Well, as expected, you--like your other OWS colleagues--have nothing substantive to say--nothing but slogans. That said, I am convicted about saying "fool." That was uncalled for, and I apologize.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

You haven't moved past sloganeering yourself.

Would like to answer the question?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Could you tell me which african countries you are talking? I have only been to South Africa and that too Johannesburg so I wouldnt know but the stats on health care and education is Africa are not very encouraging. So while I doubt if there is free education but I am pretty the quality of education and health are both poor there.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 9 years ago

Mexico, Cuba, and several other countries that are considered low in your mind also have free education and national health care. You have a lot to learn. In Mexico, all state run colleges/universities are FREE. Only the private schools (like Harvard and the like) cost money. In Canada, a person can get a degree at the best universities for what a two-year degree at a community college in the USA costs. And quit with the "the education and health care must be poor" bullshit.

My ex-husband is from Mexico. I've been there close to 20 times. Instead of spewing bullshit about places you've never been, learn to open your mind at least a little.

[-] 1 points by RioLuna (7) 9 years ago

It was the early 1980s in Tunisia. I lived in a rural area. When people in my community had a health issue, they walked to the clinic and were treated. It didn't cost anything.

It may be impossible to provide extreme health care (heart transplants, things like that) that is both high quality and free. But to provide basic health care, if you think about it much, not that difficult.

I'm guessing you're someone who considers big government inefficient. What we have is a super-bureaucratic triad of health insurance companies, pharmaceutical industries, and mega hospitals running our health care system. Free clinics for basic health care would be much less expensive and much more useful to communities.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

Free clinics would never work in America. No doctor would want to work there. Yes, for regular check up we should not have to pay a lot or even visit a hospital, may be just a GP. That is of course something we need.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

Give us a link. You don't have anything remotely important to add, so you feign a source link. Weeks before invasion, Tony Blair was doing deals with Gaddaffi. You wouldn't know shit from clay till all your bricks fell out of your walls.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

yeah i guess i wudnt know but i m sure Blair tells you apriori about his itinerary. as for the link i dont remember the blog. but u can sure google upa bit. i cud have done it but my time is 10 times costlier than yours

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

here u go http://feb17.info/news/myths-of-the-gaddafi-regime-explained/

even a little googling seems beyond ur intellectual capacity

[-] 0 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

That is a western propaganda site.

You have to read a little more widely than that to get a balanced picture






Just a sample but there is much more relevant to the social structures in libya in many African Journalist accounts before the NATO ( US led ) propaganda war started prior to NATO's illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

The guy wrote those article Professor Jean-Paul Pougala does not seem to be at all unbiased to me. He speaks eloquently about Chinese influence in Africa while I have known first hand some of the gory aspects of such influence. And don't tell me I have been 'brainwashed' by western media; looks like anyone who holds a view contrary to yours has been brainwashed. I worked on M&A deals involving certain African countries and did the grunt work on creating a SPV to carry out the projects. I have been to a few places like Johannesburg, Abuja and even Douala for my work. By and large the Chinese way of doing things seems akin to raping the country before getting married to it.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

if the people were so happy, why did they rise in revolt? And don't tell me because the West wanted. They were in revolt much before any western powers got involved.

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

As you may well be aware that Libya has many disparate groups who were at each other traditionally but drawn into better cohesion during Qaddafi's time.

I am no fan of the man at all but his achievement or the achievements within the country during his time amount to a giant forward leap, in education and literacy, health and life expectancy, development of infrastructure without debt, rights of citizens and particularly equality for women, support of community housing and family support.

Consumerism was not well developed in fact discouraged.

I leave you to make comparisons as you may see it differently

Your last comment about the Chinese is interesting.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 9 years ago

The problem was their unemployment rate at 30%. And while they have 88% literacy rate, I am not too sure about the quality of education there. As for women's right, Libyan women have been allowed to vote since 1960, much before Gaddafi. Overall the picture wasn't all that rosy for women. And if Gaddafi was such a benevolent dictator, why did he bomb his own people?

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Benevolence is probably not a good fit with many leaders including Gaddafi I agree. The bombing accounts seem to have a variety of justifications and condemnations as do actions of NATO and many foreign agencies who have operated on Libya's territory.

I am loathe to accept one lot of lies against another as fact but looking through the wide ranging information avaliable some patterns do align with other political quests.

The inconsistencies of propaganda about Libya can suit a range of political viewpoints to the extent that most things are denied by one group or another.

The newpaper headlines cannot be relied on for a balanced view.

Now the invasion has run its course chaos will prevail and a new regime will emerge. I suspect this will not be without force being used and many displaced and dissatisfied groups and tribal hierarchies. So Libyas legacy will continue but I suspect with renewed foreign assistance for a price.

Colonialism and extracted profit is an historical scourge in Libya.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 9 years ago

If Gaddaffi was so loved in Africa, why didn't any neighboring country come to his aid? Where were the millions of his supporters to put down the rebels?

Plus, just because a source doesn't agree with your mindset that doesn't make the source "western propaganda." Your sources can also be considered "Gaddaffi propaganda".

[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 9 years ago

Yes to find information that has reliable roots does take a of of looking at all sides. That can be confusing especially if you look for information to support a held point of view. Digging out consistent truths takes many many hours of research and sourcing of website conjecture. The web is abound with propaganda but also some very reliable sources with wide backing.

The Libya debacle needs more than wikipedia articles to explain what has taken place. Good luck with your research.

[-] 2 points by falcon1961 (24) 9 years ago

You folks want a link. Here you go you won'tbelieve this. Court documents of a family of three left for dead after being use collect hundreds of millions by the U.S. Government two states and major corporations to protect the unlawful disposal of toxins. www.classvictim.wordpress.com

[-] 4 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

What is wrong with free education? I went through the public school system, which was free. You still had to work for your grades. I think higher education should be the same way. Adding money to the equation only means that access depends on money instead of intelligence. Higher education should be available to anyone who is intelligent and dedicated enough to handle the curriculum.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

I agree with that last sentence 110%. The problem is we give loans to people who don't fulfill any of those requirements for degrees there is no demand for.

And don't forget, people are in fact paying for K-12 education, it just happens to be free for the student. Someone is also going to have pay for that higher education made free to students.

[-] 2 points by proudofOKC (361) 9 years ago

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. There are many people in college who don't actually like school, but they can't get a good job if they don't have a degree, so they're in college. If someone isn't a fan of school, then they should be able to get a low-skill full-time job on which they can survive. Instead, the person cleaning toilets is only allowed to work 39.5 hours a week so he doesn't get any benefits and is forced to subsist on debt and welfare.

And yes, someone has to pay for education, but if the system were more fair, I don't think it would be that much of a problem. If the rich paid the same percentage in taxes that I do, and if we toned down our war budget, more money would start coming in that could be used for education and other things.

[+] -5 points by FarIeymowat (49) 9 years ago

Demanding free education? Whoever heard of such non sense. It should be rephrased, "students demanding that their neighbors pay for their education."

[-] 3 points by JDub (218) 9 years ago

u sir, are morally bankrupt. Go fuck yourself, cause you will never add anything productive to society.