Support NeoGAF

[Pollux]

That's a shame, people like that are bringing this movement down, and giving the opponents plenty of ammunition. Thankfully, they didn't do anything too stupid that resulted in your injury or anything.

As I said I still support the "Occupy" movement but as Bruce said above, I wish there was someway to distance themselves from the idiots who do crap like that, or who antagonize cops for the sake of doing it, or who vandalize property, etc.

 

[Bloodbeard]

Forcing public funding for political campaigns would be a repeal of the first amendment.

I disagree, sire. Money isn't speech. Money is money.

 

[DanteFox]

Oh, so you did not file a police report on what appears in text to be such an aggregious affront to your person. So bad, in fact, that you want all of the protesters to be thrown in jail and you hope that none of them make bail. I'm going to make the assumption that there are two sides to this story, if only based on your backpedaling(and I mean backpedaling in the fact that you at first left out important information in your first post, presumably in order to help your attention grabbing statement that the entire group should be thrown in jail).

Or maybe anyone that's ever thrown a napkin in the direction of someone else, or even been associated with a person who has thrown a napkin the the direction of another person, deserves jail-time.

I think you're being a little defensive and presumptuous.

 

[sangreal]

Because we couldn't make monetary contributions to politicians? Nothing stopping anyone from volunteering and spreading the good word.

If you can't tell, I strongly disagree with Citizens United and the implication that money = speech.

The problem isn't the contribution limits, but the spending limits. Even if I accept your premise that money is not speech, and therefor donating to a campaign is not protected, you are still suggesting that the Government be allowed to regulate both who can campaign and how much they can campaign. Let's break it down to simple pamphleteering. You wouldn't consider it an afront to free speech for the Government to say "well you can distribute your message, but only 5 copies?" Limiting my ability to produce a TV commercial to get my message out is no different

 

[A Human Becoming]

I disagree, sire. Money isn't speech. Money is money.

That's a good point. How does money = speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The problem isn't the contribution limits, but the spending limits. Even if I accept your premise that money is not speech, and therefor donating to a campaign is not protected, you are still suggesting that the Government be allowed to regulate both who can campaign and how much they can campaign. Let's break it down to simple pamphleteering. You wouldn't consider it an afront to free speech for the Government to say "well you can distribute your message, but only 5 copies?" Limiting my ability to produce a TV commercial to get my message out is no different

But they aren't limiting how many commercials you run. How much you're willing to pay for the airtime is to your discretion. That said, you make a valid point.

 

[sangreal]

That's a good point. How does money = speech?

Most forms of speech require money to produce. It is freedom of speech, not freedom to speak

 

[Keru_Shiri]

As I said I still support the "Occupy" movement but as Bruce said above, I wish there was someway to distance themselves from the idiots who do crap like that, or who antagonize cops for the sake of doing it, or who vandalize property, etc.

Yeah, I noticed your later post, and its refreshing to see someone who isn't letting the bad apples taint their views of the movement. That said, I'm going to try and do my part and encourage peaceful demonstrations at my local movement, which is about the best we can do, I think.

 

[gcubed]

The problem isn't the contribution limits, but the spending limits. Even if I accept your premise that money is not speech, and therefor donating to a campaign is not protected, you are still suggesting that the Government be allowed to regulate both who can campaign and how much they can campaign. Let's break it down to simple pamphleteering. You wouldn't consider it an afront to free speech for the Government to say "well you can distribute your message, but only 5 copies?" Limiting my ability to produce a TV commercial to get my message out is no different

this makes no sense. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with how you get your message out.

Most forms of speech require money to produce. It is freedom of speech, not freedom to speak

again, no

edit... i'll edit this to say in my opinion.

I can't run commercials about how awesome i am because i can't afford it. Am i being infringed upon?

 

[BobsRevenge]

Forcing public funding for political campaigns would be a repeal of the first amendment.

It would be a necessary adulteration. Well, depending on how it was structured. Campaign contribution law right now is unjust, and needs to be fixed.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

glad to see some discourse in here. are we generally agreeing that at the least these movements should culminate in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal and the removal of corporate citizenship?

and to those who say; Student debt IS absolutely related to corporate and banker control of the U.S. Tuition has been artificially inflated to an absolutely unaffordable degree to the point where debt is necessary to attend school, we as students are sold to banks by universities.

Debt is directly correlated to the cost of tuition, which is related to increasing privatization of our higher education system. there is NO reason that tuition for an instate Uni should be as expensive as it is, but it is. it makes earning a degree, something necessary in our global economy, a matter of selling your soul

 

[dave is ok]

glad to see some discourse in here. are we generally agreeing that at the least these movements should culminate in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal and the removal of corporate citizenship?

and to those who say; Student debt IS absolutely related to corporate and banker control of the U.S. Tuition has been artificially inflated to an absolutely unaffordable degree to the point where debt is necessary to attend school, we as students are sold to banks by universities.

Debt is directly correlated to the cost of tuition, which is related to increasing privatization of our higher education system. there is NO reason that tuition for an instate Uni should be as expensive as it is, but it is. it makes earning a degree, something necessary in our global economy, a matter of selling your soul

No to mention, for some reason, it is the only debt unable to be discharged by bankruptcy

 

[Timedog]

I think you're being a little defensive and presumptuous.

Maybe I am, but at the same time I did just see him type that he hoped all of Occupy Boston were thrown in jail with no bail(he worded this part cleverly). Because a couple of them threw napkins at towards him.

 

[sangreal]

this makes no sense. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with how you get your message out.




again, no

edit... i'll edit this to say in my opinion.

I can't run commercials about how awesome i am because i can't afford it. Am i being infringed upon?

No. Are you serious? The first amendment is a limitation on Government power, what the hell does that have to do with what you can afford? I'm talking about the Government regulating your ability to produce speech based on the content and amount of that speech.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

glad to see some discourse in here. are we generally agreeing that at the least these movements should culminate in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal and the removal of corporate citizenship?

and to those who say; Student debt IS absolutely related to corporate and banker control of the U.S. Tuition has been artificially inflated to an absolutely unaffordable degree to the point where debt is necessary to attend school, we as students are sold to banks by universities.

Debt is directly correlated to the cost of tuition, which is related to increasing privatization of our higher education system. there is NO reason that tuition for an instate Uni should be as expensive as it is, but it is. it makes earning a degree, something necessary in our global economy, a matter of selling your soul

Explain what you mean there.

Also I think you may be off base on the student debt thing... My understanding is that there has been some pretty strong research to suggest that government funding for anyone who asks has seriously screwed up the supply/demand relationship in relation to school cost. The government really probably is to blame there. The simple solution is to implement price controls on education, but it'll never happen.

 

[BobsRevenge]

No. Are you serious? The first amendment is a limitation on Government power, what the hell does that have to do with what you can afford? I'm talking about the Government regulating your ability to produce speech based on the content and amount of that speech.

You can't hide behind the first amendment and use it as a reason things can't be changed. We need to get a campaign reform amendment into the constitution. That clearly needs to happen if we want to have any hope of keeping politics honest.

 

[Timedog]

glad to see some discourse in here. are we generally agreeing that at the least these movements should culminate in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal and the removal of corporate citizenship?

and to those who say; Student debt IS absolutely related to corporate and banker control of the U.S. Tuition has been artificially inflated to an absolutely unaffordable degree to the point where debt is necessary to attend school, we as students are sold to banks by universities.

Debt is directly correlated to the cost of tuition, which is related to increasing privatization of our higher education system. there is NO reason that tuition for an instate Uni should be as expensive as it is, but it is. it makes earning a degree, something necessary in our global economy, a matter of selling your soul

I think this, plus derivative regulation, and limits on leverage choked down.

 

[sangreal]

glad to see some discourse in here. are we generally agreeing that at the least these movements should culminate in the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal and the removal of corporate citizenship?

and to those who say; Student debt IS absolutely related to corporate and banker control of the U.S. Tuition has been artificially inflated to an absolutely unaffordable degree to the point where debt is necessary to attend school, we as students are sold to banks by universities.

Debt is directly correlated to the cost of tuition, which is related to increasing privatization of our higher education system. there is NO reason that tuition for an instate Uni should be as expensive as it is, but it is. it makes earning a degree, something necessary in our global economy, a matter of selling your soul

Eh, I agree with you somewhat. It is similar to mortgages. Either homes would cost less or people wouldn't buy them if it weren't for the ridiculous mortgage system. However, most student loans are Federal loans and most students attend non-profit schools so I'm not sure how the rising tuition costs are the fault of the banking system. The ease of getting huge student loans is certainly a factor though.

The extent that the corporate world is at fault on this issue seems to be limited to the fact that Wall Street's endless need for profit growth (being succesful/profitable isn't enough) leads to job cuts. Therefore you end up with many students saddled with debt that can't find a job.

There is also the separate issue of for-profit schools which produce un-hirable workers and saddle them with debt.

edit: The Health industry suffers the same problem. As long as insurance companies will either pay exorbitant fees for services/equipment (or cut deals with "favored providers" to reduce their costs to realistic levels), there is no reason for medical costs to ever come down to affordable levels for the uninsured.

 

[Pollux]

Maybe I am, but at the same time I did just see him type that he hoped all of Occupy Boston were thrown in jail with no bail(he worded this part cleverly). Because a couple of them threw napkins at towards him.

I never said (or meant if I did say that) that I wanted ALL of Occupy Boston thrown in jail. Just the idiots who are antagonizing people, antagonizing the cops, and vandalizing things. That's it. If you go back and look at my posts in this thread I'm supportive of the OWS movement as a whole.

I did mean that I hope none of those arrested who happen to be the ones throwing shit at people don't make bail. Why? Because they aren't helping the cause and are just making the whole movement look bad.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

corporate citizenship is the 'rights' that corporations gained in iirc citizens united, meaning their 'free speech' can't be prohibited like a human being; what this means in practical terms is that a corporate entity has no limits to the amount it can fund a politician

government funding anyone who asks? why would they need to fund anybody if school was affordable? tuition has increased hundreds of percent in the past 2 decades... why? Every other industrialized nation, rich or poor, has relatively affordable education compared to the U.S., and this is connected to the fact that in the U.S. there is an incentive to get students in debt. We can never escape it, first of all, and for many a degree is absolutely necessary.

 

[gcubed]

No. Are you serious? The first amendment is a limitation on Government power, what the hell does that have to do with what you can afford? I'm talking about the Government regulating your ability to produce speech based on the content and amount of that speech.

sorry, what i meant initially by "public financing" is citizen donations, not a set limit per candidate allocated by the government. No corporate person-hood.

Although ultimately true public financing (limit on time campaigning, money used, etc) would not pass muster as a simple law passed. Truly, the entire election system needs to be overhauled and would need to be done so through an amendment.

edit... yes, what bobsrevenge said

 

[empty vessel]

Most forms of speech require money to produce. It is freedom of speech, not freedom to speak

No they don't. They require opening your mouth or a pen and paper. It is distribution that requires money, but distribution is not, alas, speech.

Also, money is not money. Money is power.

 

[sangreal]

You can't hide behind the first amendment and use it as a reason things can't be changed. We need to get a campaign reform amendment into the constitution. That clearly needs to happen if we want to have any hope of keeping politics honest.

I'm not hiding behind it -- I fully recognize that it can be changed. I'm only suggesting that the change would ruin the core principal of the speech provision of the first amendment which is the ability to disseminate a political message without the approval of the Government. It can be done, but I don't think people have really considered the consequences.

 

[Timedog]

I never said (or meant if I did say that) that I wanted ALL of Occupy Boston thrown in jail. Just the idiots who are antagonizing people, antagonizing the cops, and vandalizing things. That's it. If you go back and look at my posts in this thread I'm supportive of the OWS movement as a whole.

I did mean that I hope none of those arrested who happen to be the ones throwing shit at people don't make bail. Why? Because they aren't helping the cause and are just making the whole movement look bad.

Okay, that's fair.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

corporate citizenship is the 'rights' that corporations gained in iirc citizens united, meaning their 'free speech' can't be prohibited like a human being; what this means in practical terms is that a corporate entity has no limits to the amount it can fund a politician

government funding anyone who asks? why would they need to fund anybody if school was affordable? tuition has increased hundreds of percent in the past 2 decades... why? Every other industrialized nation, rich or poor, has relatively affordable education compared to the U.S., and this is connected to the fact that in the U.S. there is an incentive to get students in debt. We can never escape it, first of all, and for many a degree is absolutely necessary.

Ok, that isn't corporate personhood exactly. What you're talking about is campaign finance reform. This is personal annoyance of mine. "Corporate personhood" includes a lot of other things like due process which really they SHOULD get.

I'm not disagreeing that debt is the norm in education here. I'm loaned up to high hell. The point is that there is no incentive to make it affordable for private institutions. I'd love to see what other countries do on that front, but like I've said I feel confident that the relation between gov't backed loans and school price has been well established. I don't see how bankers are causing that... They're not inflating tuition. Schools are. Seriously I don't get why people don't rage at the schools more... Law students are starting to get it right and demand something for their money. Unfortunately most undergrads are just woefully underinformed about what their administrations are doing at their schools.

 

[empty vessel]

Ok, that isn't corporate personhood exactly. What you're talking about is campaign finance reform. This is personal annoyance of mine. "Corporate personhood" includes a lot of other things like due process which really they SHOULD get.

As a matter of public grace? Perhaps. As a matter of constitutional right? Hell no. It subverts popular sovereignty if people cannot control any aspect of governmental power.

 

[akira28]

What does all this absence of media coverage mean, exactly? Why isn't it being reported on? What's the agenda, basically..

We don't believe it's really happening unless it's on TV.

Social conditioning is funny like that. Is the water getting warmer in here?

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

As a matter of public grace? Perhaps. As a matter of constitutional right? Hell no. It subverts popular sovereignty if people cannot control any aspect of governmental power.

Wait what governmental power are we talking about here? I'm talking about a corporation getting due process...

 

[Timedog]

If I may ask, what is artificially inflating tuition?

 

[BobsRevenge]

I'm not hiding behind it -- I fully recognize that it can be changed. I'm only suggesting that the change would ruin the core principal of the speech provision of the first amendment which is the ability to disseminate a political message without the approval of the Government. It can be done, but I don't think people have really considered the consequences.

It would be in regard to financing towards candidates for election into government. I think that, realistically, there is more danger from corporate financing in this space than a danger from a lack of free speech (just limited monetarily) in it. It's a necessary regulation to compensate for human greed, if you want to keep politics honest.

If I may ask, what is artificially inflating tuition?

Increasing demand by decreasing perceived risk.

 

[sangreal]

If I may ask, what is artificially inflating tuition?

Among other things, easy access to large amounts of student loans. Same as any other bubble. If there is no limit to the amount students can "afford" for school, there is no reason for tuition to go anywhere but up

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

If I may ask, what is artificially inflating tuition?

the sudden need for profit for many schools (mine has slowly become privatized) and the incentive to load students with debt.

My Uni was a public institution when my step mother went there, her tuition in 87' was $1200 total for a year. It's been slowly privatized the past 15 years and my tuition for a year is 8,000.

I'm sure the situation is far more complex, but that type of tuition (and many of you pay much more, law students z.B. ) is simply unaffordable for anybody. Europeans here don't even laugh at me, they honestly get sad for me when i say the tuition, especially when the quality of our education is just about the same.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

the sudden need for profit for many schools (mine has slowly become privatized) and the incentive to load students with debt.

My Uni was a public institution when my step mother went there, her tuition in 87' was $1200 total for a year. It's been slowly privatized the past 15 years and my tuition for a year is 8,000.

I'm sure the situation is far more complex, but that type of tuition (and many of you pay much more, law students z.B. ) is simply unaffordable for anybody. Europeans here don't even laugh at me, they honestly get sad for me when i say the tuition, especially when the quality of our education is just about the same.

You realize that "private" doesn't mean "for profit" right?

 

[empty vessel]

Wait what governmental power are we talking about here? I'm talking about a corporation getting due process...

Corporations are endowed with government power. They are creatures of government. This was well understood at the time of this country's founding. See Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf

(Article previously posted by Goya.)

 

[Dartastic]

Is there any video from the events in Boston?

 

[alstein]

A constituonal amendment banning corporate involvement on politics would be a good goal. Restrict donations to political campaigns to a $1,000 limit by registered voters only, and ban individuals from donating to their own campaigns.

If it's a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court can't throw it out.

 

[BobsRevenge]

You realize that "private" doesn't mean "for profit" right?

Private also means unsubsidized, which I think is what he was getting at. The public school I went to I think suffered from this, and my tuition grew excessively in the time I was there. The public funding wasn't enough to sustain the school's budget. I only paid for some of my last two years (parents still covered room and board), but I'm still about 20k in debt.

Plus, due to the accrued interest I owe more right now than I did when I graduated two years ago (iirc). I haven't gotten to the point where I owe less money yet. I have barely touched the principle on two of the loans. It's disturbing. I'm considering moving back in with my parents so I can straight up pay off my loans, because the amount these banks are making in interest on me over 10 years is absurd, even at around 6%. I did the calculations and about 1/3rd of all the money I'll have paid is towards interest, iirc.

imo, the government should be the lone source of student financing for non-profit institutions, and the interest rate should be kept as to match inflation, and nothing more.

 

[aggro crag]

Democracy Now and NPR Planet Money both have great shows about what the Occupy Wall Street is about. Both shows seem to come to the same consensus about the protests. Despite protesters having varying reasons for protest, the movement at very least is an exercise in participatory democracy.

Very interesting.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

You realize that "private" doesn't mean "for profit" right?

it's not direct, but i think the correlation is there. and yeah bobthefork is right on the money, and the interest on the loans are sometimes downright comical and clearly there maliciously.


the status of education in the U.S. may not be the direct result of unnacountability in financial sector, but it's certainly affected by it. We need serious reform and this is the time for it if we are going to be a major player much longer.

what is our generation going to do, completely riddled with debt to receive the same education as those worldwide as such?

i think unaffordable education was generally a result of completely reckless financial policies that got us into this mess in general, and getting it back to a level where us as Americans can become educated without becoming essentially the property of banking institutions will bring us quite far.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Corporations are endowed with government power. They are creatures of government. This was well understood at the time of this country's founding. See Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, available at: http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/corppurpose.pdf

(Article previously posted by Goya.)

Ok not disagreeing, just wasn't sure what you were talking about. Obviously they are created by statute, but they aren't viewed as creatures of the state and have traditionally been seen as entities in and of themselves. Government agencies get due process already if I'm not mistaken. I don't see why corporations wouldn't

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

Private also means unsubsidized, which I think is what he was getting at. The public school I went to I think suffered from this, and my tuition grew excessively in the time I was there. The public funding wasn't enough to sustain the school's budget. I only paid for some of my last two years (parents still covered room and board), but I'm still about 20k in debt.

Plus, due to the accrued interest I owe more right now than I did when I graduated two years ago (iirc). I haven't gotten to the point where I owe less money yet. I have barely touched the principle on two of the loans. It's disturbing. I'm considering moving back in with my parents so I can straight up pay off my loans, because the amount these banks are making in interest on me over 10 years is absurd, even at around 6%. I did the calculations and about 1/3rd of all the money I'll have paid is towards interest, iirc.

imo, the government should be the lone source of student financing for non-profit institutions, and the interest rate should be kept as to match inflation, and nothing more.

Right but the banks would never be giving out those loans without government funding so I still don't see how we're blaming this on the banks. The gov't just cut out the middle man on my loans and I assure you they're still gonna charge me the same interest...

 

[BobsRevenge]

Right but the banks would never be giving out those loans without government funding so I still don't see how we're blaming this on the banks. The gov't just cut out the middle man on my loans and I assure you they're still gonna charge me the same interest...

I'm sure you can imagine that the banks are the reason there is still a middle man, even though it doesn't really make sense for it to be there. This gets back into campaign finance reform and lobbying.

edit: Though Obama did cut out the middle man, didn't he? It's not something I was affected by, since it happened just about right after I graduated. But isn't that something that happened? It's direct now. Or will be in the near future, or something.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

The very fact we discuss loans is to me disturbing; the point is to make education affordable for humans. It was in America, it is for everyone else or at least Europeans.

the quality of education in American didn't jump up 500% in proportion to tuition, something happened, and it was malicious, profit seeking.

It all ties into the grander picture for me, the same way book cartels charge literally hundreds for books and knowingly replace them each year. Things like that have to tie in with the larger picture of complete unnacountability for profit seeking institutions on many levels.

 

[sangreal]

The very fact we discuss loans is to me disturbing; the point is to make education affordable for humans. It was in America, it is for everyone else or at least Europeans.

the quality of education in American didn't jump up 500% in proportion to tuition, something happened, and it was malicious.

Well a lot of it is just the reduction of unskilled positions, which increases the competition for secondary education.

 

[empty vessel]

Ok not disagreeing, just wasn't sure what you were talking about. Obviously they are created by statute, but they aren't viewed as creatures of the state and have traditionally been seen as entities in and of themselves. Government agencies get due process already if I'm not mistaken. I don't see why corporations wouldn't

(1) Corporations were not "traditionally" viewed as entities in and of themselves. They were viewed as extensions of state power. Which they are.

(2) Government agencies do not get due process. It is anathema to popular sovereignty and doctrinally incoherent. Saying that a government has rights is to say that it has inherent power. That is contra the American revolution, animated by the principle of popular sovereignty and opposed to the concept of inherent governmental power (British monarchy).

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

the quality of education in American didn't jump up 500% in proportion to tuition, something happened, and it was malicious.

I'm going back to no one looking at the schools. Seriously. They are accountable to no one. They rake in federally backed loans and federal grants and then answer to no one. Unfortunately centralized education reforms almost always are seen as the coming of the apocalypse.

 

[akira28]

Are you gonna answer the question about what John Lewis did for you to say "fuck everything he's done after that".

If you don't want to talk about certain subjects, don't bring them up yourself, hows abouts them apples?

How about you worry about you, and let me worry about me?

You're not so much a foil as a flack. Maybe you helped draw this thread out and push the conversation along but all you do is oppose, oppose, oppose, until you see fit to change the subject of convo to a different facet of the issue or the next event.

There's only so much benefit to engaging you, and eventually it becomes a distraction and a waste of time.


tldr: It's nice to know where Enron stands and what he thinks, but it's less important than we think.

 

[Karma Kramer]

It really is about class warfare for some of these people....they simply dislike anyone that has more than what they have. That anyone who is rich "doesn't deserve it" and whatnot.

This can only hurt the Occupy folks.

Hey man, could you please respond to my question?

I know that, I am just confused. By day 1 do you mean day 1 of OWS or day 1 as in first conflict with the police? The first conflict I remember was the pepper spray incident, which seemed to be an example of overly aggressive use of force by the police?

 

[bounchfx]

I'm going back to no one looking at the schools. Seriously. They are accountable to no one. They rake in federally backed loans and federal grants and then answer to no one. Unfortunately centralized education reforms almost always are seen as the coming of the apocalypse.

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/02/us-gov-sues-the-art-institutes-for-11-billion-fraud/

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I'm going back to no one looking at the schools. Seriously. They are accountable to no one. They rake in federally backed loans and federal grants and then answer to no one. Unfortunately centralized education reforms almost always are seen as the coming of the apocalypse.

i don't leave them out of the picture, but i think they are all at least to some degree in collusion. Students now are essentially products, how much debt can you rack them with, how many book publishers can you please, and how many grants can you take before you kick these kids in the wild without a chance in the world.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/02/us-gov-sues-the-art-institutes-for-11-billion-fraud/

1.) This seems like a loser all around. The only thing that these suits will likely succeed on are the claims that places like this enroll and charge students without their knowledge.

2.) It completely ignores institutions pricing their schools completely out of line with their actual value. Fraud is one thing, but poor management likely isn't covered. Regulation is by far the best route here.