[www.digitaljournal.com]

So from what I gather, the government can scoop you up for however long they want if you commit an "anti-government act". If this passes what is to stop the Occupy protesters from starting to turn violent as soon as the police move in - especially when they could be given, in theory, lifetime jail terms for protesting?

This could be really bad.

---

I've got big plans. ◊ Talking Blanket ◊ Yay, Butts! LOL!

almost relevant:

Quote
Tyler Durden
We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off

someone needs to tell the occupy people that they aren't beautiful and unique snowflakes.

but yeah, this act is a horrible idea. have no fear though, it won't go through. (unless they change it alot)

Quote
jacobfiala
almost relevant:

Quote
Tyler Durden
We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off

someone needs to tell the occupy people that they aren't beautiful and unique snowflakes.

but yeah, this act is a horrible idea. have no fear though, it won't go through. (unless they change it alot)

this comment is funny, but i think alot of people are rightfully angry at having been sold out, going into debt to get a college degree and then getting a job at target or something, all while the dollar is being ripped apart, i think maybe theyve got the right idea, and yeah that bill is very terrifying, obviously most americans would be strongly against it, but itll probably go through anyway

not to get into too big of a political thing, but whenever I go to Occupy protests (and they are pretty much daily in SF), I talk to people about their personal student loan debt, what they had hoped for going in, what they found in the present, and what they are hopeful for in the future. Most of them had kind of high expectations going in, but even in a great economy, I don't think many of these expectations were realistic. If you get a degree in international relations for example, if you finish at the top of your class, you might get a job making decent money at some private firm, but more likely you will end up in a smaller shop that doesn't pay much, and you have to work your way up to a better salary, probably at a better firm -- though that means you will likely end up working longer hours in more of a rat-race environment. It's kind of similar to the airline pilots that Michael Moore highlighted in Capitalism, making little money and struggling to survive. But they are part of seniority programs through the pilot union. The money starts low but increases significantly as seniority accrues, as do the flight routes you can take, and the number of required flight hours per month gets lower and you get more freedom in picking your hours/routes. By the end, senior captains are making well into the six digits, working not too many hours a month. That system could be changed by the unions, but for every dollar a junior pilot gets, a senior pilot makes less. Would they be happy with a system that starts out at 60K a year, but never goes up? It seems like it is mostly a matter of patience.

And there is also the issue of paying back the student loans. I hear a lot of students complain that they are stuck with 25, 30, 40K and more of student debt. But there are programs where, if you want, you can pay it back over 30 years, making your monthly payments relatively small. As you get more cash in pocket, you can increase those payments, specifying that the extra portion of the payments goes directly to principal, so you can pay it down and off in less than 30 years, and do it in a way that suits your income means. On that note, federal loans offer deferments based on employment status, etc., and will also offer payment plans based on your income. There are some hardship deferments where no income accrues.

The other week, I spoke to a woman holding a sign saying something like, "I took $120,000 for my law degree -- where is my high paying job?" And so, I talked to her about it, asking where she went to school, what her grades were like, and, most important, what kind of law did she want to practice. She was very honest -- her grades weren't grade, her law school was, in all respect, not a top-tier school, and she wants to practice civil rights law. I asked her exactly who told her she would get a high paying job coming out of that school, with those grades, practicing civil rights law? High paying jobs are, almost exclusively, corporate-based gigs, always have been/always will be. I also mentioned that there were both federal and state programs that allowed partial forgiveness for student loans if a student works in public sector positions for a certain period of time. I also reminded her that, while she might not have a job right now, her law school education will last her forever and, even if she takes a civil rights job, it will eventually pay her dividends several times over her 120K investment. That's the great thing about education and why I don't find student loans so offensive. Unlike a house, a car, a stock, etc., no one can take your education away from you. No one can foreclose on it. It's yours forever and ever. Anyways, she was not interested and said to me, "it must be nice to be in the 1%."

My first law job in NYC was at a crappy, small firm, for a grand total of 40K, I literally couldn't afford rent or food on that. It also gave me an oportunity to get courtroom and client experience almost immediately that most of my friends who went to big firms and got big salaries never got. My salary has increased by now and I can afford rent and food and roadt trips to MGs shows and student loan payments (which, by the way, I am still paying, but don't even notice anymore).

anyways, tl;dr -- but the NDAA is a stupid act and won't get passed.

---

The first thing that distinguishes a writer is that he is most alive when alone. - Martin Amis

wow, that was a long fucking post.

how about just this: i love the goddamn mountain goats.

---

The first thing that distinguishes a writer is that he is most alive when alone. - Martin Amis

if i had an insane college debt, i'd leave the country and never come back. canada has hash bars and molson. mexico has beaches and modelo especial.

or if i wanted to stay in the u.s., i'd just accept that it was my mistake for majoring in something that would not pay back my student loan within my lifetime. trade schools are really the way to go. 2 years in, get a job and you have a house and kids before doctors and lawyers. sure, you won't be a rich 60 year old, but you won't be bad off.

it's time the protesters hibernated anyway. i think they should protest every summer. just make it like a summer vacation type thing. occupy summer vacation until they get whatever it is they want.

i must reiterate, any protesters out there that don't vote democrat every election deserve what they get.

is that harsh?


ETA - WHAT WC SAID

---

don't clap between movements



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2011 03:55PM by mike5998.

WC, for the sake of the forum I'm not going to quote your really long post but I am going to respond to it.

I agree with every point you made. I think one of the biggest enemies are the Universities. I remember my brother showing me how my major averaged around 100k "after graduation" and how he was choosing his major based on those numbers. I would cry for joy if I made even half that amount.

The universities continue to promise big salaries after you graduate and are charging more and more because they know the kids are just going to take out loans and may not notices. When I was going through college I had to argue every semester with the admissions office because I was being charged a late fee for payment when they were handling all of my student loans. I'd hate to think of what kind of stunts they'd try to pull if I were actually living on campus.

EDIT: I usually spell check before posting, d'oh!

---

I've got big plans. ◊ Talking Blanket ◊ Yay, Butts! LOL!

the protesters seem to be a diverse group, there are probably alot of kids there that mostly just want to be a part of something and many who are basically just bitter about the way their life is going, but i think thats ok either way and that the larger message of the movement is the most important thing, i think there is good reason to be angry just at the state our country is in and the collapse it is headed for, im not really an expert on our economy or anything, i only found out about the federal reserve act and how our economy really works through coverage of the protests, ive spent alot of nights up late watching movies about the federal reserve and the corruption of our government and economic system the past few months and find it all really terrifying, oh and i just saw that that ndaa bill did pass this morning, HOLY F%$#^@!!!!!!!

the big problem i do have w/ student loans these days, which is very different from when I took mine out is the interest rate. I had both private and public loans. the private loans interest rates charged between 6 and 9 percent - not terrible for a private loan but certainly not great. I paid those off 1st. My public loans all charge interest at between 1.25 and 1.75 percent. that is good debt to have, and it doesn't really make sense to pay them off too quickly, as you can likely invest that extra money in even conservative investments and beat a 1.75 percent average annual return over 20-25 years.

now, when i talk to students or recent grads, their interest rates on public loans is between 6 and 8 percent. that really hikes things up and balloons your debt pretty quickly if you don't have the luxury to start making interest and principal payments right away to avoid interest accumulation. that doesn't seem right or fair or even conscionable to me, but i don't see anyone making a stink of this particular point, which I really think is the worst thing that has happened to students over the last 15 years. it's not just the educaton costs have risen, its that the student loan interest rates have skyrocketed, which i would think can really balloon and become almost unmanageable.

---

The first thing that distinguishes a writer is that he is most alive when alone. - Martin Amis



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2011 05:30PM by Wild Creature.

[theopenglobe.org]
ok maybe i didnt read the whole article and just saw the headline, i am stupid.....but still!!! 93-7 in the senate, wtf!!

the world will always need plumbers and garbagemen.

going to school for years and years, racking up loan after loan, for a job you may not get?

sounds like buying stocks.

when they can't get this hypothetical high paying job, nobody wants to sell low.

they want to keep their worthless stocks in their pockets and occupy parks with other people that played the same stock market poorly.

meanwhile, the real culprits slink away unscathed, unoccupado.

schools need to lower their tuitions, school books need to not cost so damn much. like wc says, loans have to be lower percentage.

that way, if you spend 10 years in school, you won't be out so much money when you can't get a job.

---

don't clap between movements

my firat post was strictly for entertainment, although it is very strange to me how well that quote fits them.

anyway, as for my actual occupy whatever you want beliefs, more power to you.

I think you'll end up in a good job for which you are qualified, and if you have to work at target or Walgreens until then, I'm sorry about that. and if I'm oversimplifing your suffering, I'm sorry again, I have trouble seeing myself in your shoes. "I was promised a job if I got a degree!" by whom? your parents? teachers? that old lady at church? all of those people have told me some crazy shit! maybe I'm paranoid, but I take everything with a grain of salt. you worked to finish high school, you worked to get into a good college, you're gonna have to work your ass off to find a good job too.

but you're working your ass off now with the protests and it'll probably help. go for it, and good luck.

that's where I stand.

my feeling is maybe there is good reason for people going apeshit, not just those who have massive student loan debts, banks being given trillions, the same banks that run the federal reserve and have been stealing from us and wreaking havoc for the last century, or the wars most americans are against and obama promised to end but have only expanded into several countries now, i just feel like at least people are trying to put up some resistance to all of this the best way they can, whatever personal gripes many of them might have

@WC:

you mentioned this lady has a $120k debt, with the intention of studying/working Civil Law, a not very high paid job. Now, i've no idea whatsoever about the way that student loan and Universities work in America so i am approaching this from the wonderful standppoint of ignorance, BUT, if the course she studied cost $120k and there's little chance she'll move into a career that will allow her to pay that off then why does the course cost so much to start with?

edit: just read your second post regarding the cost of loans. I guess my question isn't aimed at you, but at the education department of your govt.

@general rant:

I know that people have unrealistic expectations of what they may earn when they leave Uni, especially if they studied a degree that isn't historically well paid, but i'm concerned (and this is from a UK point of view, with fees going up to £9k per year pretty much across the board) that this will then stop people doing such degrees... it will make people think twice about studying important jobs that don't pay well. People don't (and shouldn't) go to Uni just to earn big bucks upon leaving, and so having increased costs only seems to prevent those who want to go for other reasons. Such as learning's sake.

The rich can still do whatever the fuck they want, at no real cost to themselves.

Disclaimer: this doesn't have much to do with the occupy movement, to which WC was referring... it's late. i was ranting... terribly sorry!

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2011 06:06PM by betamax.

it passed the house today, wow, now it only needs to pass in the senate, and the white house has stated it won't veto the bill, i couldnt see any mention of it ANY major news organization articles, apparently the nullification of the bill of rights isnt a very big story

if this passes, i'm going to a park with a couple signs.

---

don't clap between movements

Quote
NPR
The vote was 283-136 and reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

It was a rare instance of bipartisanship in a bitterly divided Congress. The Senate is expected to pass the measure on Thursday and send it to Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

I still don't care for the bill, but according to this article at least we dodged a bullet on what would've been one of the biggest violations of our rights in our time.

---

"But not me,
I'm gonna crawl,
I'm gonna crawl,
I'm gonna crawl,
Back to the sea."

"Goddamit, I love John Coltrane."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 10:22AM by Kathaariancode.

Yeah, Obama didn't veto it because he said they "softened" it up...

---

I've got big plans. ◊ Talking Blanket ◊ Yay, Butts! LOL!

Well, if it is the case that they made US citizens exempt, and it's also the case that making US citizens exempt from the language in the bill regarding detainees is an instance of softening the bill up, then it follows that Congress did soften the bill up, and since Obama did abandon his veto, he would be able to make that claim. If I'm missing something please let me know, but this is just what I have gathered.

An important distinction: I don't support this bill, since I think that language regarding detainees would violate human rights, but I was under the impression that the administration's opposition was rooted in violations of civil rights, not human rights.

The fact that they changed the language should be considered a major victory, since the margins it was passed with in the Senate were fully capable of overriding any veto on the part of Obama.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2011 12:11PM by Kathaariancode.

Quote
jacobfiala
but yeah, this act is a horrible idea. have no fear though, it won't go through. (unless they change it alot)

lol, I stand corrected

Quote
Kathaariancode

Quote
NPR
The vote was 283-136 and reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

It was a rare instance of bipartisanship in a bitterly divided Congress. The Senate is expected to pass the measure on Thursday and send it to Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

I still don't care for the bill, but according to this article at least we dodged a bullet on what would've been one of the biggest violations of our rights in our time.

well thats a good thing if its true, but theres no way to verify it because they only post bills online after they pass, and the jay carney quote only talks about the ways the bill challenges the presidency's ultimate authority in these matters, not that it is a violation of peoples rights, if it is true that there is exemption for us citizens, thats a good thing, that would make it a redundancy of the patriot act, wouldnt it? anyway, it is still a violation of human rights, we shouldnt shrug it off just because it doesnt violate our rights, only other peoples

[.1867" rel="nofollow">thomas.loc.gov]:
it is actually posted online, its over 900 pages long, but im gonna read this bitch

hmm didn't work for me... can you just do a CTRL+F for nazi for me?

---

I've got big plans. ◊ Talking Blanket ◊ Yay, Butts! LOL!

Quote
dollabill
hmm didn't work for me... can you just do a CTRL+F for nazi for me?

[www.gpo.gov]
i was gonna try to read it all but i gave up on page 20 or so, its mostly gobbledygook, its sections 1031 and 1032 with the real heavy nazi shit

Thanks for posting that! Glad to see for certain that the detainee provisions won't affect US citizens.