Occupy Wall Street

[Zanchief]

Brin

Big Finance can do what ever it wants to make a buck, as long as it's legal for all I care. It's the government’s role to protect its citizens not companies. You're basically saying please make money but be nicer about it even though it's not illegal and you really have no reason not to.

This is not a realistic position. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

[Tossica]

Brin

Big Finance can do what ever it wants to make a buck, as long as it's legal for all I care. It's the government’s role to protect its citizens not companies. You're basically saying please make money but be nicer about it even though it's not illegal and you really have no reason not to.

This is not a realistic position. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

If the corporations weren't making the laws, you might be right.

[Zanchief]

They aren't without the help of the federal government.

[Tossica]

It's a helpless feeling. They own our government. It seems all you can about it at this point is throw a tantrum.

[brinstar]

omfg Zan i am running out of ways to explain it to you, but i'll try again:


obviously The Rules say that businesses may not break laws to make money.

but businesses are actively using money to pay politicians in order to GET LAWS CHANGED (usually regardless of the impact on the public).

again, i am not making a partisan argument (and if you will note, have tried my hardest to avoid such a slant in all of my posts heretofore), as this happens within both parties on a regular basis. in general, Big Oil pays for the GOP, Big Labor pays for the Dems, and Big Finance pretty much pays both sides.

THIS IS CORRUPTION. this IS happening, because it has BECOME legal.


now, if you want to debate whether these folks should be protesting on wall street or on capitol hill, fine, we can have that debate. but to deny Big Finance and Government are in bed together is simply wrong (or at least ignorant).

[Gypsiyee]

sadface, all that time i spent writing that post and it was the bastard child that fell near the end of page 2 =(

[Lyion]

omfg Zan i am running out of ways to explain it to you, but i'll try again:

obviously The Rules say that businesses may not break laws to make money.

but businesses are actively using money to pay politicians in order to GET LAWS CHANGED (usually regardless of the impact on the public).

The proper word is 'donate'. Bribery is illegal. Anyways, So does labor. So do military veterans. So do groups of soccer Moms who watch Oprah. Are you advocating against any and all special interest donations, or just the ones you think personally should not have a voice?

THIS IS CORRUPTION. this IS happening, because it has BECOME legal.

Donating to elections is not corruption, it's just not something you like. Corruption would be bribery, sweetheart insider deals, or giving huge government loans via the Energy Department to companies like Solyndra forced by the executive branch after huge donations. I agree this stuff should be limited, but that is pure corruption. I'd argue corporations donating is freedom, and should be allowed.

Anyways, election money is worth far less now a days with social media and more divergent avenues of communication and news. I think it's right and proper for companies to support candidates who have business friendly views. However, it also is right to regulate this, and it's being done very strenuously.

now, if you want to debate whether these folks should be protesting on wall street or on capitol hill, fine, we can have that debate. but to deny Big Finance and Government are in bed together is simply wrong (or at least ignorant).

The problem with the protesters for me is I have no idea what they are protesting. The TEA party, despite the demagoging, was protesting too much government spending, which is fairly simple to understand. If they are protesting the insidious fact that hedge fund people and wall street insiders with wealth leverage the system to have a few reap billions of dollars off the backs of the hundreds of millions of producing tax payers, I can support that sentiment. If you have just pure anger over capitalism, well not so much.

[Gypsiyee]

I'm not Alex, but I'll bite.

The proper word is 'donate'. Bribery is illegal. Anyways, So does labor. So do military veterans. So do groups of soccer Moms who watch Oprah. Are you advocating against any and all special interest donations, or just the ones you think personally should not have a voice?

Well, Brin specifically stated that this was not a partisan issue and it was an issue on either side (he even specifically mentioned who is in the pockets of whom) so.. no, I don't think anyone is picking and choosing their favorite special interests and exempting them. The problem is the unlimited and undisclosed anonymous donations that allow people to shit on the donation caps put into place after Watergate.

Donating to elections is not corruption, it's just not something you like. Corruption would be bribery, sweetheart insider deals, or giving huge government loans via the Energy Department to companies like Solyndra forced by the executive branch after huge donations. I agree this stuff should be limited, but that is pure corruption. I'd argue corporations donating is freedom, and should be allowed.

I'm not really clear on why you're going to specifically call Solyndra corruption but not mention TARP which cost taxpayers a hell of a lot more. Greenlighting an energy company that happens to go belly up is more corrupt than giving a pass to companies who fucked Americans up the ass, got a refund re-do with more money from the same people they'd just fucked, and subsequently fucked us again... really? Let's call a spade a spade here--if you want to talk corruption and inadequate oversight, I'd say TARP makes a much clearer case than Solyndra.

Anyways, election money is worth far less now a days with social media and more divergent avenues of communication and news. I think it's right and proper for companies to support candidates who have business friendly views. However, it also is right to regulate this, and it's being done very strenuously.

Well, this is just outright untrue. If election money is worth less, then why, exactly, are campaigns spending exponentially higher amounts since the Citizens United verdict? Why were the mid-term elections accompanied by the highest campaign expeditures in history? Surely they wouldn't spend billions on something that's worthless.

The problem with the protesters for me is I have no idea what they are protesting. The TEA party, despite the demagoging, was protesting too much government spending, which is fairly simple to understand. If they are protesting the insidious fact that hedge fund people and wall street insiders with wealth leverage the system to have a few reap billions of dollars off the backs of the hundreds of millions of producing tax payers, I can support that sentiment. If you have just pure anger over capitalism, well not so much.

This isn't simple capitalism. This is depletion of the middle class and a tiny minority magically increasing their wealth at astounding rates while somehow the rest of the country is in a recession and is losing all of theirs. Want to talk socialism and redistribution of wealth? How about the policies that allowed the redistribution upwards? EGTRRA didn't result in trickle down economics, it resulted in trickle up poverty.

[Harrison]

I don't see a difference between "donations" and bribery.

None.

Just saying...you're paying them to sway their actions, either way.

[Zanchief]

but businesses are actively using money to pay politicians in order to GET LAWS CHANGED (usually regardless of the impact on the public).

The the government is to blame.

again, i am not making a partisan argument (and if you will note, have tried my hardest to avoid such a slant in all of my posts heretofore), as this happens within both parties on a regular basis. in general, Big Oil pays for the GOP, Big Labor pays for the Dems, and Big Finance pretty much pays both sides.

When have I made this into a partisan issue?

now, if you want to debate whether these folks should be protesting on wall street or on capitol hill, fine, we can have that debate. but to deny Big Finance and Government are in bed together is simply wrong (or at least ignorant).

How are you not realizing that's what I've been doing from the get go?

Also all this corruption the sky is falling is clear hyperbole. Yes, lobbying is bad. It was bad when it was happening and the economy was booming and everyone was making money. It's just as bad now that were in a recession. The only way to change it is to get the feds involved. Asking business men to make less money isn't going to work.

[Zanchief]

sadface, all that time i spent writing that post and it was the bastard child that fell near the end of page 2 =(

I'm not ignoring you Gyps but I don't have time to carry out to epic internet conversations at the same time. Brin got in first, so I was responding to him. Most of what I said applies to you too though. It's not that I don't sympathize with these people, but I just often see these liberal causes and I can't help but shake my head. So much of what they get riled up about is based on a huge amount of misinformation in order to endear people into a cause that has been grossly (or completely) exaggerated.

I see nothing different here. I agree with them in principal, but I'm not getting behind these guys.

[Lyion]

I'm not Alex, but I'll bite.

Well, Brin specifically stated that this was not a partisan issue and it was an issue on either side (he even specifically mentioned who is in the pockets of whom) so.. no, I don't think anyone is picking and choosing their favorite special interests and exempting them. The problem is the unlimited and undisclosed anonymous donations that allow people to shit on the donation caps put into place after Watergate.

I was just offering my opinion of what 'real' corruption is, versus campaign donations which should be allowable. All corporate donations must be disclosed. We attempted to get foreign website undisclosed funds revoked, but it was deemed also a matter of freedom, despite being far more than any company donated.

I'm not really clear on why you're going to specifically call Solyndra corruption but not mention TARP which cost taxpayers a hell of a lot more. Greenlighting an energy company that happens to go belly up is more corrupt than giving a pass to companies who fucked Americans up the ass, got a refund re-do with more money from the same people they'd just fucked, and subsequently fucked us again... really? Let's call a spade a spade here--if you want to talk corruption and inadequate oversight, I'd say TARP makes a much clearer case than Solyndra.

TARP and Solyndra are apples and oranges. TARP was deemed necessary to allow liquidity to remain in the market to not crater the economy. The implementation and transparency were hugely poor but it was generally bi-partisan. Solyndra was disapproved by the Fed before the Obama administration took over due to it being a 'bad bet'. Obama received a lot of 'donations' from investors in Solyndra and squeezed the Energy Department to give them a loan they should not have gotten. They also in an unprecedented manner rewrote the loan earlier this year giving investors priority over taxpayers right before bankruptcy.

Anyways, my opinion is large loans and contracts should not be handled by the government at all. Regardless of if it's Solyndra or Haliburton, and that's where the real corruption is to be found. There should be a simpler bid process and much more accountability.

Well, this is just outright untrue. If election money is worth less, then why, exactly, are campaigns spending exponentially higher amounts since the Citizens United verdict? Why were the mid-term elections accompanied by the highest campaign expeditures in history? Surely they wouldn't spend billions on something that's worthless.

They use it because they have the extra cash? It's amazing in a time of recession some candidates can easily have a billion dollars in their war chest. My point remains that the capabilities for communication are at an all time high and the diversity of channels and means of gathering information negate a lot of what was given in older elections. Volunteers often times are worth their weight in gold, as are grass roots efforts

This isn't simple capitalism. This is depletion of the middle class and a tiny minority magically increasing their wealth at astounding rates while somehow the rest of the country is in a recession and is losing all of theirs. Want to talk socialism and redistribution of wealth? How about the policies that allowed the redistribution upwards? EGTRRA didn't result in trickle down economics, it resulted in trickle up poverty.

The depletion of the middle class has more to do with outsourcing/offshoring and the artificial housing bubble bursting than it does with wealth growth by shareholders. The facts and statistics disagree with your EGTRRA opinion. The economy did grow and jobs were created. I'd argue the country would still be booming now except for the uneasiness and large rate hikes experienced by business due to the gloom and doom of Obamacare and it's costs and uncertainty on business.

The Dem's had a 60 person filibuster proof majority in the Senate and controlled the house and executive branch, and still have majority control of Congress. They enacted a lot of unpopular corporate legislation like Dodd-Frank. Are you saying we needed even more legislation or just higher taxes on the wealthy? Why didn't they enact the tax changes so many progressives wanted then? The GOP hasn't had a 60 person majority in the Senate like that in a long time. All the bills they've passed have been with some Dem support. Obamacare did not get one GOP vote. Many of 'higher' incomes above 250k are from small businesses and if you raise their taxes you lower the amount of capital they can use for growth. The few super wealthy, a la Buffet, and others who ironically include a lot Dem supporters have tons of lawyers and lobbyists and won't pay more taxes anyways.

If you're anti capitalism and want super high taxes and freebees for all people, that's cool. I personally think those policies destroy jobs and make an environment of stagnation and fewer jobs. I think the solution is to get the government out of loans and most contracts which are where the real corruption can be found. Ensure everything in the government is transparent. Really redo the tax code so the Buffet types pay their fair share, and small business isn't equated with billionaire's with hundreds of tax lawyers. Repeal Obamacare. Reduce the size and cost of government. Finally, we need smart bipartisan entitlement reform, which will enable these programs to continue to exist when you and I retire. Right now they will be insolvent by that time.

...and I still have no clue what the point of the Object Wall Street movement is......

[Gypsiyee]

I was just offering my opinion of what 'real' corruption is, versus campaign donations which should be allowable. All corporate donations must be disclosed. We attempted to get foreign website undisclosed funds revoked, but it was deemed also a matter of freedom, despite being far more than any company donated.

Are you aware that non-profit organizations who are legally not allowed to make political interference their sole operation can donate funds to PACs? Are you aware that these non-profits have no obligation to disclose their donors? And are you aware how many politically driven non-profits have the potential to flush money to PACs with no disclosure and complete anonymity? Let's say I'm a billionaire, a corporation, whatever. I donate to "social welfare" non-profit A and am allowed to do it completely anonymously because that social welfare group is under no legal obligation to disclose who I am. That non-profit then turns around and donates all that money in its own name to Super PAC b. Now, the non-profit's name has to be disclosed, but they're not capped on their donation so it doesn't matter how much money they got elsewhere or from other businesses or people--all of that PAC money can now be listed as a donation from non-profit A. I think you grossly overvalue the notion that corporations involved in political donations are completely disclosed with all the loopholes the supreme court opened up last year.

And okay, let's talk about the passage of the citizens united ruling. In a 5-4 ruling, 2 of the majority had close ties to multi-billionaires who stood to gain from the resulting decision. One of those two had a wife with a PAC who publicly stated that she'd be happy to take corporate donations as a result of the decision. How does this not strike you as corrupt? And how is a corporation deserving of equal rights of individuals?

TARP and Solyndra are apples and oranges. TARP was deemed necessary to allow liquidity to remain in the market to not crater the economy. The implementation and transparency were hugely poor but it was generally bi-partisan. Solyndra was disapproved by the Fed before the Obama administration took over due to it being a 'bad bet'. Obama received a lot of 'donations' from investors in Solyndra and squeezed the Energy Department to give them a loan they should not have gotten. They also in an unprecedented manner rewrote the loan earlier this year giving investors priority over taxpayers right before bankruptcy.

I never said something like TARP wasn't necessary. The government needed to intervene, just like it needs to intervene with energy. It's not apples and oranges except in that the fraud involved in TARP cost us significantly more than Solyndra did.

Solyndra, mind you, was on a short list of approved companies before Obama had even taken office in a process that was years in the making. Bush took it to committee literally just before Obama's inauguration and the committee said it wasn't quite ready: note, that does not mean it was denied. That same committee conditionally approved the stronger application that was sent later, and then it went through another half a year of due process before the loan was issued.

They use it because they have the extra cash? It's amazing in a time of recession some candidates can easily have a billion dollars in their war chest. My point remains that the capabilities for communication are at an all time high and the diversity of channels and means of gathering information negate a lot of what was given in older elections. Volunteers often times are worth their weight in gold, as are grass roots efforts

Wait, what? That's a bunch of hogwash under a smokescreen. You should have a look at PAC expenditures if you think it's so simple as that. or hey, just take a gander at the sheer uprising of PACs in the last year. It's just a matter of extra disposable cash for the candidates... really? Seriously? I'm kind of at a loss for words over those first two obtuse sentences honestly.

Really, you want to start a conversation about how amazing it is that candidates have more money in recession times? Would you like to talk about how the top 1% (job creators!!!) have increased their net worth by billions in the past couple years and yet there are still no jobs.

The depletion of the middle class has more to do with outsourcing/offshoring and the artificial housing bubble bursting than it does with wealth growth by shareholders. The facts and statistics disagree with your EGTRRA opinion. The economy did grow and jobs were created. I'd argue the country would still be booming now except for the uneasiness and large rate hikes experienced by business due to the gloom and doom of Obamacare and it's costs and uncertainty on business.

Yes, the first sentence is part of it. In a time that should've seen continued growth, yes, there was some growth.. but at an unbelievably slow rate. The economy was never something you could call "booming" as a result of EGTRRA. Hell, let's even pull a Fox story for that one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html Those tax cuts were vetoed under Clinton more than once and blazed through unchecked almost immediately upon Bush taking office by being re-written into a reconciliation bill so that it could pass without having to worry about too few votes. That's why the sunset clause is in there. Allowing them to expire IS NOT a tax hike.

Yes, the poor corporations and their uncertainty is why there are no jobs. It's all the bad man's fault. The same poor businesses who have continued to see record profits in a worldwide recession. Yes, those poor, poor people. Must be so scary that big bad government expects them to lawfully comply with their tax obligations.

The Dem's had a 60 person filibuster proof majority in the Senate and controlled the house and executive branch, and still have majority control of Congress. They enacted a lot of unpopular corporate legislation like Dodd-Frank. Are you saying we needed even more legislation or just higher taxes on the wealthy? Why didn't they enact the tax changes so many progressives wanted then? The GOP hasn't had a 60 person majority in the Senate like that in a long time. All the bills they've passed have been with some Dem support. Obamacare did not get one GOP vote. Many of 'higher' incomes above 250k are from small businesses and if you raise their taxes you lower the amount of capital they can use for growth. The few super wealthy, a la Buffet, and others who ironically include a lot Dem supporters have tons of lawyers and lobbyists and won't pay more taxes anyways.

To the bolded, yes to both. Why didn't they enact the tax change? Well, a number of reasons, one being because the political climate was already so volatile that the president tried too hard to play nice and ended up failing his base, including in healthcare which didn't make nearly as much progress as I'd hoped. Would you please not start on the small business victim propaganda? His proposal was to let EGTRRA be made permanent for those under 250k, and instead you're subscribing to strategic attack verbiage. Do you understand what a sunset clause is? Half the time I think it's like the damn cuts were strategically worked knowing the next election cycle would probably end up democrat; leave the expiration on their plate and let them look like the tax raising bastards. The cuts were only passed under the condition of being temporary. Letting them expire is not a tax hike. The republican driven hyperbole about Obama's tax proposals and their detriment to small businesses is simply false. http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?fu ... wn&id=3691

If you're anti capitalism and want super high taxes and freebees for all people, that's cool. I personally think those policies destroy jobs and make an environment of stagnation and fewer jobs. I think the solution is to get the government out of loans and most contracts which are where the real corruption can be found. Ensure everything in the government is transparent. Really redo the tax code so the Buffet types pay their fair share, and small business isn't equated with billionaire's with hundreds of tax lawyers. Repeal Obamacare. Reduce the size and cost of government. Finally, we need smart bipartisan entitlement reform, which will enable these programs to continue to exist when you and I retire. Right now they will be insolvent by that time.

Again with the blanket demonization of the left mindset. We're socialists, we want freebees, we want outrageous taxes. You're smart enough not to have to resort to that drivel. As to the policies destroying jobs and and economic stagnation, at no time in history has this ever been true. As for transparency, President Obama has made efforts to be as transparent as we've ever seen in our government.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Unfortunately, they are not. They're greedy and self-serving, and a purely capitalistic model will return us to serfdom.

...and I still have no clue what the point of the Object Wall Street movement is......

clearly, since the movement is called Occupy Wall Street =P

[Gaazy]

How do I know its done at home and not in the bathroom at work. Some people hide being high really well.

now, as most of you on this board know I don't do any drugs, never have really.. but if people hide being high well enough that you have no idea and it's not impacting their quality of work, why would it make any difference..? if they're desperate for a job, yes they should quit, but if you're desperate for good workers and you're dismissing them on the prospect of a hypothetical situation, you're kind of just as guilty.

and i think you guys are fooling yourselves if you think that just because there's a bunch of jobs listed on a website that there's just infinite resources if "those fat lazy fucks would just get up and try."

There are MBAs who haven't even been able to land a job in fast food in this economic climate. they get stuck between a rock and a hard place. employers who offer jobs that they're well qualified for don't have the spots because of the stiff competition and crappy jobs won't hire them because they're way overqualified and don't want to take the jobs away from people who have minimum wage careers and can't afford to be without that $7 an hour. Blue collar isn't going to work the same as white collar. Welding and other trades are a niche jobs that require training and you can't expect that people who have all of their experience and education in one field can just up and abandon everything they know to spend money getting certified in a blue collar career and vice versa.

Where did I say anything about fat fucks not getting up to try or whatever? I said skilled labor is hard to find. And it is. Yes you are right about the blue collar/white collar stuff Im sure, but I dont feel like doing any debating so Ill just agree anyways. But welders and types of blue collar labor are just as important to our economy as big MBA jobs, so I dont see why your going on about it. All I said was that good welders and the like are hard to find, theres a lot of competition for them right now as well

My bottom line is, if you cant pass a drug test, I dont want you, whether Im struggling to find people or not. Just because you are doing OK now doesnt mean you wont make a mistake because you have a problem later on. If they can jump and dodge my tests, more power to them, but if they cant stop using for a few days to clean up for an initial test, fuck em

[Gypsiyee]

I didn't say the fat fucks thing about you, Gaazy. that just tends to be the mindset of a lot of people who say "oh there are plenty of jobs, people just don't want them." and fwiw, most of my post was a response to harrison and then both of you (which is why i answered to you and then started the next paragraph with 'you guys')

I never, ever said that blue collar jobs were less important. I just said that white collar unemployed people can't just up and switch to blue collar and vice versa. what I mean by that is that if a white collar person loses a job in an area with plentiful blue collar jobs, they're just not qualified for the available jobs.. that doesn't make them lazy. if a welder loses his job and there are plenty of analyst white collar jobs available, being unemployed doesn't mean he's lazy, either.. supply and demand applies to jobs, too.

our society wouldn't exist without primary, secondary, and tertiary sector labor, so please don't think that I'd ever discredit the value of industries in those areas. that wasn't what i was implying in the least.

[Lyion]

A white collar person can learn and perform a blue collar trade. The problem is many choose not to, and would rather live on the dole. Plus we do have an entitlement mentality. Sally got her Masters Degree in Womans Studies, so she feels she is too good for a blue collar job, even though her higher education is completely worthless outside of academia. If you live in an area with a huge shortage of electricians, and you've been searching for a teaching position for a while, wouldn't it behoove said person to perhaps go to school for that versus where there is a known need?

An MBA can easily learn how to weld, and get damn good at it. Likewise, a welder can get more education and move into management or another white collar field. I have a friend with a Ph. D in physics who lost his teaching position at SDSU and ended up working fast food. The guy now owns a few restaurants due to his work ethic, and the fact he wasn't too good to do what he had to do to take care of his family. I do know many people refuse to either learn new skills or to move closer to where jobs are.

For a lot of people who are unemployed it means they are indeed lazy and inflexible.

[Narrock]

A white collar person can learn and perform a blue collar trade. The problem is many choose not to, and would rather live on the dole. Plus we do have an entitlement mentality. Sally got her Masters Degree in Womans Studies, so she feels she is too good for a blue collar job, even though her higher education is completely worthless outside of academia. If you live in an area with a huge shortage of electricians, and you've been searching for a teaching position for a while, wouldn't it behoove said person to perhaps go to school for that versus where there is a known need?

An MBA can easily learn how to weld, and get damn good at it. Likewise, a welder can get more education and move into management or another white collar field. I have a friend with a Ph. D in physics who lost his teaching position at SDSU and ended up working fast food. The guy now owns a few restaurants due to his work ethic, and the fact he wasn't too good to do what he had to do to take care of his family. I do know many people refuse to either learn new skills or to move closer to where jobs are.

For a lot of people who are unemployed it means they are indeed lazy and inflexible.

Funny, because I can have a "white collar" job if I want, but the idea of sitting in an office (or cubicle) all day just isn't my cup of tea... been there, done that. I love driving a big rig and hauling around a powder-keg of sorts that could set off a mushroom-cloud type explosion if something wrong happens, like: Static electricity, lightning, someone flicking a burning cigarette butt too close to my truck, getting side-swiped by a car too fast, etc.

[Tossica]

A white collar person can learn and perform a blue collar trade. The problem is many choose not to, and would rather live on the dole. Plus we do have an entitlement mentality. Sally got her Masters Degree in Womans Studies, so she feels she is too good for a blue collar job, even though her higher education is completely worthless outside of academia. If you live in an area with a huge shortage of electricians, and you've been searching for a teaching position for a while, wouldn't it behoove said person to perhaps go to school for that versus where there is a known need?

An MBA can easily learn how to weld, and get damn good at it. Likewise, a welder can get more education and move into management or another white collar field. I have a friend with a Ph. D in physics who lost his teaching position at SDSU and ended up working fast food. The guy now owns a few restaurants due to his work ethic, and the fact he wasn't too good to do what he had to do to take care of his family. I do know many people refuse to either learn new skills or to move closer to where jobs are.

For a lot of people who are unemployed it means they are indeed lazy and inflexible.

What a smug response.

[Gypsiyee]

A white collar person can learn and perform a blue collar trade. The problem is many choose not to, and would rather live on the dole. Plus we do have an entitlement mentality. Sally got her Masters Degree in Womans Studies, so she feels she is too good for a blue collar job, even though her higher education is completely worthless outside of academia. If you live in an area with a huge shortage of electricians, and you've been searching for a teaching position for a while, wouldn't it behoove said person to perhaps go to school for that versus where there is a known need?

An MBA can easily learn how to weld, and get damn good at it. Likewise, a welder can get more education and move into management or another white collar field. I have a friend with a Ph. D in physics who lost his teaching position at SDSU and ended up working fast food. The guy now owns a few restaurants due to his work ethic, and the fact he wasn't too good to do what he had to do to take care of his family. I do know many people refuse to either learn new skills or to move closer to where jobs are.

For a lot of people who are unemployed it means they are indeed lazy and inflexible.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. a) getting trained, certified, or educated in an entirely new career costs money. People who don't have jobs don't have money. It also takes time. In the meantime, they're also going to be passed over for those who have the skills already.

You're saying that the best solution for these people is to denounce their entire careers and go into deeper debt to learn an entirely new career path when they can't even keep food on the table? And while they go deeper into debt, they can apply to jobs in the new trade they're learning and be passed over for people who actually already have experience in the field as often happens to new graduates with no work experience. Or another solution is to pick up and move closer to jobs.. and exactly how do they afford that when they're unemployed?

Your solutions require people to dig a deeper hole for a slim chance. Your PhD friend is an exclusive exception and that's not just because of his "great work ethic", but also a bit of luck. There are plenty of people unemployed with a great work ethic that have been passed over for fast food jobs, members of my own family included. Before my sister finally found a job she was told by 4 restaurants, including McD's which she worked at for 8 years before she graduated college, that they couldn't in good conscience hire her for a couple reasons--one, there are people who haven't got the skills who need a job like that and they can't just give it to someone who has the resume to get a better job and 2, as soon as a career opportunity comes that's in her field they'd likely have to replace her again. She also has a 5 year old and making 7 dollars an hour doesn't do a whole lot if your entire work shift is reliant on you finding day care for your kid that you have to shell more money for than you're making.

What a picture perfect world you must live in where everything just falls into place with no roadblocks.

[Lyion]

Almost every state has financial aid for retraining for the unemployed. Also, didn't we just have a trillion dollar stimulus to jumpstart the economy? The problem is many do not want to start at the bottom of a blue collar field.

Toss, do you care to elaborate? I find your response basically let the government spend more money which to me solves nothing but adds debt to the middle class tax burden since the super wealthy have their lawyers, loopholes, and lobbyists and don't pay it, regardless of if their rate is 9% or 90%. Tell me what you'd like.

Good Krauthammer Article:

The scapegoat strategy -By Charles Krauthammer,

What do you do if you can’t run on your record — on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn’t noticed that you’ve been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains.

President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America’s dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.

Didn’t work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obama’s base lusts for above all.

Hence Obama’s new strategy: Don’t whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich — and their Republican protectors — for wrecking America.

In Obama’s telling, it’s the refusal of the rich to “pay their fair share” that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don’t pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It’s crude. It’s Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it’s ridiculous. Obama’s most coveted tax hike — an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) — would have reduced last year’s deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day’s federal spending. You could collect Obama’s favorite tax loophole — depreciation for corporate jets — for 100 years and it wouldn’t cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.

After three years, Obama’s self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them.

Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China’s currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war — a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.

Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees — except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It’s perfectly transparent.

Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank — after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.

Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.

Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program — less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What’s the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.

And then what? Haven’t gotten that far.

No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles — and its failures — on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.

From the Senate to the streets, it’s working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring.

[Gypsiyee]

please don't call a partisan op-ed an "article."

let me ask you since you're so confident in each state's fantastic re-training programs and the feasibility of re-starting your entire career when you have a family to care for. Have you ever been in the situation to have to utilize them? have you had to dive head first into an entirely new career that you know nothing about and start back from the bottom when you were 20 years invested into the career you just lost by no fault of your own?

it's easy to sit on your high horse and cast judgment when you've never been there.

[brinstar]

done

[Lyion]

please don't call a partisan op-ed an "article."

let me ask you since you're so confident in each state's fantastic re-training programs and the feasibility of re-starting your entire career when you have a family to care for. Have you ever been in the situation to have to utilize them? have you had to dive head first into an entirely new career that you know nothing about and start back from the bottom when you were 20 years invested into the career you just lost by no fault of your own?

it's easy to sit on your high horse and cast judgment when you've never been there.

I thought we could have a discussion without it degrading into silliness, but I guess respect is a one way street.

Everyone goes through trials and tribulations. I don't cast stones and judge, but I try and respect others opinions. You know nothing of me, and honestly I know nothing of you except you display the same tactics you curse Mindia for having, as do some others. Good job there.

[Gypsiyee]

I didn't say I knew anything of you or accuse you of anything. I asked open ended questions for you to answer. I fail to see how that's degrading into silliness, and likening me asking you questions to saying everyone of a certain political mindset has a mental disorder isn't really on the mark.

Let me apologize for my wording as well if it came off as an attack--I shouldn't have said "when" but rather "if" because I meant that last sentence as a general statement rather than specific to you. Tone is lost through text as you know, and again I'm sorry if it came off as an accusation.

[leah]

i went down to the Occupy Lincoln kickoff last night and saw a protest corgi. i was quite excited.