Occupy.... the Simthsonian?

Cone_Junky wrote:

JThw8 wrote: So while the Occupy groups may have some valid issues they need to get to work, if they work hard enough they too could be part of that 1% they hate so much.

You are aware this is the GRM board? I think it is safe to assume ALL of us on here are not the 1%. So by your logic EVERYBODY on here did not work hard enough because we are not the 1%? I also think it is safe to assume that most or all of us will never be in that 1%. So why are so many of you fighting for them? (You do realize that the 1% has already bought lobbyist and politicians to fight for them, right?) Don't worry about them, they are doing just fine without you. Maybe some people go to school to be or take jobs that are enough to take care of themselves and their families or to satisfy their moral needs? Not everybody wants to be a multi-millionaire. Maybe we aren't all capitalistic greedy pigs?

I never understand this logic. Not to make an example, but i don't understand the need to lash out against a group just because you'll never be part of said group.

I doubt i'll ever be part of the 1%, and i'm ok with that. But i'm perfectly ok with them BEING the 1%. I don't feel the need to hate them, or try to take their money, just because they have more.

This isn't have and have nots. This is haves, and have mores.

Also: Different goals. I don't care enough to be part of the 1%, i can do just fine on way less. So i'll stop there. Balance work with life.

1% equal the fringe whackos that get on TV by defecating in a park for two weeks in an ill-defined, unorganized physical version of an internet forum rant. 99% equal the rest of us.

Did I get that right?

JThw8 wrote: But can we realistically believe everyone there is just on time off from their jobs? If they are not then are they living off and inheritance? mom and dad's money? probably safe to say its not off their big Wall Street stock portfolio.....

So now everyone involved in Occupy is rich?

Grizz wrote: Colleges are glorified babysitting services because highschools(and everyone else for that matter) push kids into going there, with no real idea of what they want to do, and a list of do nothing classes and degrees that are a massive waste of time. Plus, the stuff they keep pushing people into(this is true of tech schools as well) is mostly computer related, and that market has a ridiculous turnover rate and is already flooded.

If this is a problem with our education system then why denigrate the protesters? Sounds you agree that they were sold a bill of goods that didn't pan out. If a social contract is broken you will have a backlash.

Also, do you have any data to back up your claim about computing as a field being flooded? I'd like to see them if you don't mind. I'm very familiar with that field so I may be able to offer some insider views. For SCIENCE of course.

Grizz wrote: Added point, you know why plenty of college graduates can't find a job? It's because most employers see a degree(In an actual field of course) and think the person is just going to move on once they find a job related to it. I had to take the HVAC stuff off applications to get jobs at warehouses and the like. A degree or training is only helpful in the field it's related too, not so much any where else.

I think it's great you've familiarized yourself with the current climate of jobs for a college graduate. Where did you go to school? I'm sure you're a recent grad because you're speaking from experience right? What year did you graduate?

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I never understand this logic. Not to make an example, but i don't understand the need to lash out against a group just because you'll never be part of said group. I doubt i'll ever be part of the 1%, and i'm ok with that. But i'm perfectly ok with them BEING the 1%. I don't feel the need to hate them, or try to take their money, just because they have more. This isn't have and have nots. This is haves, and have mores. Also: Different goals. I don't care enough to be part of the 1%, i can do just fine on way less. So i'll stop there. Balance work with life.

They are not lashing out at the 1%. They are lashing out at the fact that our laws and politicians cater to the 1%.

They don't want to "take" their money. They want them to pay a more appropriate tax for the money that they earned off the middle class's back. This isn't Socialism. Nobody is saying they only need to make $50K a year and give the rest to us. They are saying that these people can do just fine on $1.3 million per year instead of the $1.5 they are currently making.

Elizabeth Warren puts it well-

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!

But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Cone_Junky wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: I never understand this logic. Not to make an example, but i don't understand the need to lash out against a group just because you'll never be part of said group. I doubt i'll ever be part of the 1%, and i'm ok with that. But i'm perfectly ok with them BEING the 1%. I don't feel the need to hate them, or try to take their money, just because they have more. This isn't have and have nots. This is haves, and have mores. Also: Different goals. I don't care enough to be part of the 1%, i can do just fine on way less. So i'll stop there. Balance work with life.

They are not lashing out at the 1%. They are lashing out at the fact that our laws and politicians cater to the 1%. They don't want to "take" their money. They want them to pay a more appropriate tax for the money that they earned off the middle class's back. This isn't Socialism. Nobody is saying they only need to make $50K a year and give the rest to us. They are saying that these people can do just fine on $1.3 million per year instead of the $1.5 they are currently making. Elizabeth Warren puts it well- "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Reasonable, but...

How much is enough? How much of a person's earnings should they be allowed to keep? I'm paying damn near 50% in taxes. It sucks. I pay more for taxes than I do for food, shelter, transportation, hobbies, entertainment, etc. It's the single largest expenditure I have.

I understand the view now.

I don't agree with ALL of it....

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

This makes it sound like they didn't pay for those things. They did.

I somewhat agree with the sentiments, but definitely not in the way they were laid out.

But this becomes a clash of ideals more than anything. But at least i understand that i was looking at the sentiments incorrectly in the first place.

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

That is the problem. You are paying nearly 50%. The rich aren't paying anywhere near that.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Also - Someone should have told the chick above when she was in high school that you don't need to spend $35k to dive muff.

I don't think that's a chick...

$35k won't even get you a new Boxter, and the Italian stuff is over $100k.

Maybe the guy ought to change his Major to Finance and go to work on Wall Street.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That is the problem. You are paying nearly 50%. The rich aren't paying anywhere near that.

He obviously hasn't worked hard enough to be in that 1%. Try harder.

AngryCorvair wrote: my notebook page would say: - i worked my way through engineering school at a state university - i took a course load that was compatible with my work schedule - after seven years, i had my BSME with zero debt - i chose senior-level electives that made me employable in my field of choice - sorry that feminist non-profit didn't work out for you - yes, i believe i *will* super-size it, thanks for asking I AM A PRODUCER!

And this is why I like you :)

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote:

JThw8 wrote: So while the Occupy groups may have some valid issues they need to get to work, if they work hard enough they too could be part of that 1% they hate so much.

You are aware this is the GRM board? I think it is safe to assume ALL of us on here are not the 1%. So by your logic EVERYBODY on here did not work hard enough because we are not the 1%? I also think it is safe to assume that most or all of us will never be in that 1%. So why are so many of you fighting for them? (You do realize that the 1% has already bought lobbyist and politicians to fight for them, right?) Don't worry about them, they are doing just fine without you. Maybe some people go to school to be or take jobs that are enough to take care of themselves and their families or to satisfy their moral needs? Not everybody wants to be a multi-millionaire. Maybe we aren't all capitalistic greedy pigs?

I never understand this logic. Not to make an example, but i don't understand the need to lash out against a group just because you'll never be part of said group. I doubt i'll ever be part of the 1%, and i'm ok with that. But i'm perfectly ok with them BEING the 1%. I don't feel the need to hate them, or try to take their money, just because they have more. This isn't have and have nots. This is haves, and have mores. Also: Different goals. I don't care enough to be part of the 1%, i can do just fine on way less. So i'll stop there. Balance work with life.

Pretty much responded better than I could have. I'm not supporting the 1% nor do I think that anyone who is not part of it is lazy. Most GRMers I know embody the ideals of which I speak. They may not be able to find work in their fields, but they work. They may never be rich but they've learned that money doesn't buy happiness. But most importantly they do for themselves and don't expect the government to fix their problems or take care of them.

I have no desire to be part of the 1%, but I also dont want to be considered a part of the same 99% that the Occupy people are. They do not represent me, my goals or my ethics.

Xceler8x wrote:

JThw8 wrote: But can we realistically believe everyone there is just on time off from their jobs? If they are not then are they living off and inheritance? mom and dad's money? probably safe to say its not off their big Wall Street stock portfolio.....

So now everyone involved in Occupy is rich?

Ok, so they aren't collecting unemployment, they dont have trust funds or parents paying their way um are they stealing those laptops? The food they eat? The clothes on their backs? My point is the money is coming from somewhere and more often than not I'd guess its coming from the govt, unless they are rich. Point is I dont know their situation, nor do I care, if they want a job I have some yardwork that could be done. Beneath them? See my previous comment on the subject.

For the record, I dont have a degree, the only thing the government ever gave me was 3 hots and a cot and I worked my ass off for them to get it. I have not succeeded in life because I was given anything, instead I went out and worked for what I wanted. Starting with the "do you want fries with that" and ending up as night manager of the restaurant before the end of my senior year of HS, not because anyone gave me anything, because I worked my ass off for it.

I get that times are hard, and I am not criticizing anyone who has fallen on hard times, but there is always work to be done and your degrees dont make you too good to do it. The concept of "entry level" seems to be lost on too many people these days. Sometimes entry level is not even in your field, but if you get lucky maybe you can get a mailroom job at that company that does what you want, get in the door, prove yourself, WORK your way up.

I have no sympathy for anyone who's complaint in life is that the government isnt giving them what they "deserve". A large portion of the problem with our government is they spend too much time trying to give people things rather than get them off their butts.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Also - Someone should have told the chick above when she was in high school that you don't need to spend $35k to dive muff.

I don't think that's a chick...

It better be. I sort of get a chick going for women's studies. It's easier to do that than to tell your parents outright that you're playing for the other team. A dude who does women's studies? Unless he's in the first 5 minutes of a porno, that does not compute.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Also - Someone should have told the chick above when she was in high school that you don't need to spend $35k to dive muff.

I don't think that's a chick...

It better be. I sort of get a chick going for women's studies. It's easier to do that than to tell your parents outright that you're playing for the other team. A dude who does women's studies? Unless he's in the first 5 minutes of a porno, that does not compute.

Maybe he just wants to iron their shirts?

Cone_Junky wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That is the problem. You are paying nearly 50%. The rich aren't paying anywhere near that.

He obviously hasn't worked hard enough to be in that 1%. Try harder.

And yet, neither of you even tried to provide a number.

Try harder and justify your grounds. Otherwise, you're making just as cogent a point as those who OAP, i.e., "Occupy Any Place".

Datsun1500 wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: You are aware this is the GRM board? I think it is safe to assume ALL of us on here are not the 1%. So by your logic EVERYBODY on here did not work hard enough because we are not the 1%?

You would be surprised at the level of wealth on this board. There are plenty of people here doing very well, and a few are in the 1% group...

Can I see a show of hands of the 1% logged in to the GRM forum...

...

....

Bueller?

oldsaw wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: That is the problem. You are paying nearly 50%. The rich aren't paying anywhere near that.

He obviously hasn't worked hard enough to be in that 1%. Try harder.

And yet, neither of you even tried to provide a number. Try harder and justify your grounds. Otherwise, you're making just as cogent a point as those who OAP, i.e., "Occupy Any Place".

15%-20%

Cone_Junky wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: You are aware this is the GRM board? I think it is safe to assume ALL of us on here are not the 1%. So by your logic EVERYBODY on here did not work hard enough because we are not the 1%?

You would be surprised at the level of wealth on this board. There are plenty of people here doing very well, and a few are in the 1% group...

Can I see a show of hands of the 1% logged in to the GRM forum... ... .... Bueller?

If i was part of that 1%, that's the last thing i'd be advertising on the internet, let alone in THIS thread, of all things.

idiots, i tell you, this country if full of idiots. they cant even protest the right people/places. the gov is at fault here and they protest the banks? upset that they dont have any money but would rather protest than get a job. F'n morons.

Well obviously you would be working hard 20 hours a day and wouldn't have time to post on a "grassroots" forum. Maybe a ghostwriter to fill in?

Cone_Junky wrote: Well obviously you would be working hard 20 hours a day and wouldn't have time to post on a "grassroots" forum. Maybe a ghostwriter to fill in?

... Can't tell if trolling...

I just don't understand why they are protesting on Wall Street rather then Capital Hill. I mean it is the politicians who made a tax system which berkeleys over the middle class and have driven us deep in to debt and provides a poor education system and gives lots of money bail out banks who then gave bonuses to the CEOs and prop up the lazy asses who bum off the government rather then working and I could go.

JThw8 wrote: Ok, so they aren't collecting unemployment, they dont have trust funds or parents paying their way um are they stealing those laptops? The food they eat? The clothes on their backs? My point is the money is coming from somewhere and more often than not I'd guess its coming from the govt, unless they are rich.

Come on, this is just ridiculous. Maybe they have families that care enough about them to make sure they aren't starving or unclothed, despite being worthless hippies or whatever. Do you honestly think the horrible job prospects for recent graduates aren't putting a massive burden on the millions of americans who worked so hard to put their kids through school, and are now having to support them in spite of the fact that they did everything they thought they were supposed to do? Does that mean the grads don't deserve the chance to have a berkeleying future?

The problem right now is that Wall Street has all the money and the government in their pockets, and for all the talk about "producers", they just FLAT OUT AREN'T PRODUCING. Instead of growing businesses, opening factories, creating goods, lending money to build buildings, advancing technology, and HIRING ALL THE READILY AVAILABLE LABOR THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE HUNGRIER OR CHEAPER, banks and corporations are mostly just hoarding, and doing all they can to suck off the government teat. This is obviously working out great for them, so why would they bother to make the system work properly again? The dow is up almost 80% from 2009. Bank profits are at record highs. So why the berkeley is everyone still out of work!?!

Cone_Junky wrote: 15%-20%

They should be able to keep 15-20%, or they should be taxed 15-20%?

Josh wrote: There really hasn't been anything an 18 year old could have chosen for a career in recent history that has any sort of security or guarantee of a job, aside from signing up to be sacrificed in wars that a majority of us don't believe in.

Suggesting enlisting is "signing up to be sacrificed" is pretty demeaning and not a very well thought out statement, and just so you know, recruitment goals are more than fulfilled for quite some time. I have another 6 months to wait before there's space at Parris Island for me.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: 15%-20%

They should be able to keep 15-20%, or they should be taxed 15-20%?

They(1%) are only being taxed at 15-20% while we pay 30-40% in taxes. Actually as high as 50% according to you.

Cone_Junky wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: 15%-20%

They should be able to keep 15-20%, or they should be taxed 15-20%?

They(1%) are only being taxed at 15-20% while we pay 30-40% in taxes. Actually as high as 50% according to you.

Copy. What should they be taxed at?