Occupy Wallstreet people are Nucking Futs!

[LawBeefaroni]

S'OK, thanks to H.R. 347 that the President recently signed into law, the government can further stifle protest and speech anywhere the Secret Service deems necessary.

Not anywhere.

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

[GreenGoo]

Hilarious. So the secret service can (do whatever one does to people entering an area illegally) arrest? people that enter an area the secret service says is scheduled to have a secret service protected person in the future. And if plans change and that person doesn't actually show up at that area, well, things change, you know?

It's a weird law. It gives the secret service power to designate a "no trespassing" zone and thereby create a bunch of criminals who wonder into that area despite having no clue it is now illegal to go there.

I realize that in normal circumstances it won't play out like that. It's the abnormal circumstances that would have me questioning it.

[Anonymous Bosch]

S'OK, thanks to H.R. 347 that the President recently signed into law, the government can further stifle protest and speech anywhere the Secret Service deems necessary.

Not anywhere.

Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it's illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal. (It expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.)

Sure, as long as you don't dare to petition the government for a redress of grievances while anyone under Secret Service protection happens to be visiting, you're golden. It's not as if there's some supreme law of the land that states we have the right to do so, or anything.

[Isgrimnur]

You have a right to say what you want. The government isn't forced to allow you unrestricted access to any and all locations to do it.

The devil is in the details of how much and how wide the exclusion should be limited.

[noxiousdog]

You have a right to say what you want. The government isn't forced to allow you unrestricted access to any and all locations to do it.

The devil is in the details of how much and how wide the exclusion should be limited.

Free speech zones!

[Isgrimnur]

That's perhaps taking things too far the opposite way, in my opinion.

[Anonymous Bosch]

You have a right to say what you want. The government isn't forced to allow you unrestricted access to any and all locations to do it.

The devil is in the details of how much and how wide the exclusion should be limited.

Oh, I'm sure we can trust the United States government. Just ask any Indian/Native American.

[Zarathud]

Given the low prevailing interest rates, charging 6.8% on student loans makes no economic sense. It's ridiculous, but I expect Congress will delay for the next 3 months looking for a way to use the crisis as a political weapon against Obama.

President Obama urged lawmakers in his State of the Union address to stop this student loan rate hike from going into effect. But the deficit-conscious Congress has yet to act, especially since extending the 3.4% rate would cost $5.6 billion a year, according to FinAid.org.

While the president has focused on expanding access to college for low- and middle-income children, lawmakers have taken several steps to whittle away at student aid.

Congress has eliminated subsidized loans for graduate students, as well as most discounts. They also cut $8 billion out of the Pell Grant program for low-income students and reduced the income threshold for eligibility for a full Pell Grant. CNN Money

[Victoria Raverna]

You have a right to say what you want. The government isn't forced to allow you unrestricted access to any and all locations to do it.

The devil is in the details of how much and how wide the exclusion should be limited.

Free speech zones!

Instead of Free Speech zones, the government just need someFree Speech guns.

[Isgrimnur]

Officer John Pike, who pepper sprayed the UC Davis protestors was just awarded $38k in workers compensation for psychological damage suffered as a result of the horrible actions that he, uh ... suffered...?

[LawBeefaroni]

Officer John Pike, who pepper sprayed the UC Davis protestors was just awarded $38k in workers compensation for psychological damage suffered as a result of the horrible actions that he, uh ... suffered...?

Being a meme is a bitch.

[Fireball]

Officer John Pike, who pepper sprayed the UC Davis protestors was just awarded $38k in workers compensation for psychological damage suffered as a result of the horrible actions that he, uh ... suffered...?

That seems completely inappropriate.

[LawBeefaroni]

Officer John Pike, who pepper sprayed the UC Davis protestors was just awarded $38k in workers compensation for psychological damage suffered as a result of the horrible actions that he, uh ... suffered...?

That seems completely inappropriate.

Without knowing the details of the claim or the hearing it's hard to say. Was he ordered to pepper spray the protesters? Was he following procedure? Sure he was fired so he obviously did something wrong but the entire UC Davis police force was prepped and ready for confrontation:


I think Pike made a poor choice but if he was driven to it by his training, co-workers, or orders, then he may have a legitimate claim for the subsequent damages he suffered. Some may say it was well deserved suffering but that's not the point of W/C.

[Scuzz]

Kind of crazy that he got $38k for that but he was the fall guy for what I think was a poorly planned and poorly run operation. I wouldn't be surprised if he was suing someone on the side as well.

That is the American way.

[Pyperkub]

Kind of crazy that he got $38k for that but he was the fall guy for what I think was a poorly planned and poorly run operation. I wouldn't be surprised if he was suing someone on the side as well.

That is the American way.

Eh, that's probably a few month's pay. Perhaps equivalent to a short leave with pay. In terms of Workers Comp, that's puppies. If he had been LAPD, he'd probably have gotten 100x as much...

[Isgrimnur]

Reports I read put his annual at $110k, so that represents about 3 months of pay at his old wages.

[geezer]

Reports I read put his annual at $110k, so that represents about 3 months of pay at his old wages.

UCDavis campus cops make 100k/yr????

[Holman]

Reports I read put his annual at $110k, so that represents about 3 months of pay at his old wages.

UCDavis campus cops make 100k/yr????

It's possible. Rather than just having "campus security guards," the university probably has its own full-blown police department. (Many big schools do.) An officer with rank and lots of experience could be making that much. He doesn't look young.

[Pyperkub]

Reports I read put his annual at $110k, so that represents about 3 months of pay at his old wages.

UCDavis campus cops make 100k/yr????

It's possible. Rather than just having "campus security guards," the university probably has its own full-blown police department. (Many big schools do.) An officer with rank and lots of experience could be making that much. He doesn't look young.

Think of UC Davis as a city with a population of 54k people (plus visitors), in California. They definitely have a UCPD police force. If you know the guys name, you can look him up on the Sacramento Bee's database of Public employees and find his salary and title.

[Isgrimnur]

He also was on the job for 11 years.

[Scuzz]

Davis is a very liberal, very eco friendly town that is probably expensive to live in.

[Pyperkub]

Davis is a very liberal, very eco friendly town that is probably expensive to live in.

A college town, in other words

[Scuzz]

Davis is a very liberal, very eco friendly town that is probably expensive to live in.

A college town, in other words

Davis is beyond that, unless it is small enough to be totally dominated by the college. And that is possible. San Luis Obispo is like that and it is dominated by Cal Poly.

Fresno State is like a liberal island in a sea of conservative.

[LordMortis]

I totally missed this on the news cycle. I thought this would make an interesting look at we're where at with an election cycle later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKCN0X82M1

In the election cycle between then and now everything has seemed the largely heartfelt and up front exactly unlike what drove me away from the similar dissatisfaction rooted snake oil sale on the other side. Its shifted my attitude literally progressively left in ways I never thought possible. On the right we have Palin, Trump, and Cruz as flag bearers and on the left we have Warren and Sanders. On the right, we arm ourselves and demand the take over wild life refuges. On the left, civil disobedience accepts that jailing will keep awareness on the front page.

Anyhow, it's a good time for reflection.

Oddly enough, I still don't believe in "free" education and loan forgiveness.

[gbasden]

Oddly enough, I still don't believe in "free" education and loan forgiveness.

Loan forgiveness I understand, but what about college makes it unworthy for public support? We completely pay for K-12 education - what besides tradition makes college so different? Some states already subsidize part of college. A number of European countries make college free as well. I wouldn't really support paying full boat for someone wanting to go to a prestigious and expensive Ivy League, but as the expectation continues to rise among employers that employees will have a degree I would support additional public investment.

[Defiant]

I'm for making college affordable (btw, there was some stuff I posted in the Clinton thread about how, from what I could find, much of the raise in costs was due to the government putting a lot less money into education, putting the burden on students), but not for making it free.

I could maybe get behind putting in a scholarship to provide free tuition at public schools to any student who maintains a B or B+ average and successfully graduates within 4 years or something (but there would have to be something in to insure there was no grade inflation)

[gbasden]

I'm for making college affordable (btw, there was some stuff I posted in the Clinton thread about how, from what I could find, much of the raise in costs was due to the government putting a lot less money into education, putting the burden on students), but not for making it free.

I could maybe get behind putting in a scholarship to provide free tuition at public schools to any student who maintains a B or B+ average and successfully graduates within 4 years or something (but there would have to be something in to insure there was no grade inflation)

I guess I don't understand the bright line. When I attended U.C. Riverside, tuition was around $400 a quarter. 25 years later, it's over $4400. At the time it was cheap enough that I could pay for it relatively easily by working. $400 a quarter is pretty damned close to free, yet I didn't see crazy numbers of kids blowing off classes and wasting their opportunities. What are the negative aspects of subsidizing some larger or smaller amount of college (at least at public schools) that you see?

[Defiant]

I'm for making college affordable (btw, there was some stuff I posted in the Clinton thread about how, from what I could find, much of the raise in costs was due to the government putting a lot less money into education, putting the burden on students), but not for making it free.

I could maybe get behind putting in a scholarship to provide free tuition at public schools to any student who maintains a B or B+ average and successfully graduates within 4 years or something (but there would have to be something in to insure there was no grade inflation)

I guess I don't understand the bright line. When I attended U.C. Riverside, tuition was around $400 a quarter. 25 years later, it's over $4400. At the time it was cheap enough that I could pay for it relatively easily by working. $400 a quarter is pretty damned close to free, yet I didn't see crazy numbers of kids blowing off classes and wasting their opportunities. What are the negative aspects of subsidizing some larger or smaller amount of college (at least at public schools) that you see?

Well, my main concern *is* people blowing off classes and wasting their time. Keep in mind, only about 60% of students graduate, and when you get to completing it in 4 years at public universities it drops down to around 20%.

Now, to be fair, some of them might be working or have some other good reason for taking longer, but I think it's fair to say that some don't.

Also, like I said in the Clinton thread, much of the rise in costs in public schools is due to cuts in government funding. I'd be open to undoing that.

[gbasden]

Well, my main concern *is* people blowing off classes and wasting their time. Keep in mind, only about 60% of students graduate, and when you get to completing it in 4 years at public universities it drops down to around 20%.

Now, to be fair, some of them might be working or have some other good reason for taking longer, but I think it's fair to say that some don't.

Also, like I said in the Clinton thread, much of the rise in costs in public schools is due to cuts in government funding. I'd be fine with undoing that.

I'd certainly be in favor of that as well. I'm not so much necessarily arguing that college should be free as being philosophically interested in Mortis' vehement reaction to the concept. He feels strongly enough about it that he's brought it up multiple times, and I'm curious. Very few folks seem to have a problem with K-12 education being freely available to every citizen, yet most everyone is against extending that to post graduate learning even as it becomes a larger and larger requirement for most white collar work.

To be clear, I'm not pulling a Rip nor being a devil's advocate - I do believe that many students are coming out of even state colleges heavily indebted, and I would absolutely be in favor of reducing that burden. My personal feeling is that more students should be eligible for low interest loans to attend college with some amount of the loan being forgiven once the student successfully graduates. I'd set that amount at like 50 -70% of the tuition cost of a decent public school, perhaps.

[Defiant]

I'd certainly be in favor of that as well. I'm not so much necessarily arguing that college should be free as being philosophically interested in Mortis' vehement reaction to the concept. He feels strongly enough about it that he's brought it up multiple times, and I'm curious. Very few folks seem to have a problem with K-12 education being freely available to every citizen, yet most everyone is against extending that to post graduate learning even as it becomes a larger and larger requirement for most white collar work.

Well, I don't think we're going to be seeing everyone going to college - nor is that necessarily a great idea in the foreseeable future (only a third of Americans have college degrees - while that percentage will continue to go up, it doesn't make sense for everyone to go at this time).

For me, I see it as an investment. Someone who has gone to college and done well will be 1) less likely to be unemployed 2) make more money 3) pay more taxes over their lifetime - more than enough to pay the cost of that education. Plus, we'll (hopefully) have better educated people, which is usually a good thing.

[Fitzy]

Unlike high school, college is about choice. What do you want to do? What do you want to be?

You have the freedom to make the wrong choice.

If the public is fully paying where does the choice line move to?

Does the public fully pay for everyone who wants a history degree? Or do we limit the number of history degrees to a reasonable amount?

The other question I'd have is are we going to subsidize the student or the institution? Is the government going to pay for little Timmy's Harvard degree? Or does the government get to say, sorry Timmy you have to go to a community college.

Making college "free" isn't a magic wand. It would require a massive change in the way we think about college.

[LordMortis]

I'm not so much necessarily arguing that college should be free as being philosophically interested in Mortis' vehement reaction to the concept. He feels strongly enough about it that he's brought it up multiple times, and I'm curious.

My vehement reaction stems from people going to college with no plan, as 18 year olds often don't have and then graduating with a six figure debt and still having no plan. I've also brought up that I'm willing to listen to alternatives to free education. Something I've not heard from the occupy (and progressive) movement.

Here at OO, I was intrigued by the idea of extending public schooling and I am very much in favor of work study and apprenticeship programs, as I am a very vocal supporter of rebuilding our infrastructure as a national movement.

My personal feeling is that more students should be eligible for low interest loans to attend college with some amount of the loan being forgiven once the student successfully graduates. I'd set that amount at like 50 -70% of the tuition cost of a decent public school, perhaps.

With a plan for additional requirements of academic excellence toward "needed" decrees, I could see drastically expanding federal loans for public institution but rather than subsidizing the loan they instead remove them from independent bankers. I don't know what the plan would be but I could see being agreeable to this. That's a far cry free college. There are options other than free college.

Now that I think about it, I don't even mind forgiving loans for underpaid public service jobs, like for teachers. For instance, (without putting thought into it), as long as you teach at public school making less than the mean, the gub'ment pays your student loan, X% is progressively cut from your loan payment as you make so much above the mean."

For me, I see it as an investment. Someone who has gone to college and done well will be 1) less likely to be unemployed 2) make more money 3) pay more taxes over their lifetime - more than enough to pay the cost of that education. Plus, we'll (hopefully) have better educated people, which is usually a good thing.

I don't mind treating higher education as an investment but investors don't just give their money away to everyone who asks. (I don't think that's what you are saying but it's why I stop at federally paid for school for everyone.)

Making college "free" isn't a magic wand. It would require a massive change in the way we think about college.

That's what I haven't seen from progressive demands or from progressive leadership. I don't mind a demand to go to the table to have debate about a massive change in the way we think about post secondary education.

[Kraken]

For me, I see it as an investment. Someone who has gone to college and done well will be 1) less likely to be unemployed 2) make more money 3) pay more taxes over their lifetime - more than enough to pay the cost of that education. Plus, we'll (hopefully) have better educated people, which is usually a good thing.

I wonder if the GI Bill is a valid comparison. Look what happened to the US economy when vets returning from WW2 were given free college educations. Wiki says "By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

"Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that sped long-term economic growth."

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a similar shot in the ol' economy if millions of potential students are given access that they can't currently afford, or if those who are currently stretching to get degrees can graduate without being shackled with debt that prevents them from forming new households or starting businesses. In fact it's probably one of the smartest investments government could make, even allowing for some inevitable percentage of abusers and malingerers.

[noxiousdog]

For me, I see it as an investment. Someone who has gone to college and done well will be 1) less likely to be unemployed 2) make more money 3) pay more taxes over their lifetime - more than enough to pay the cost of that education. Plus, we'll (hopefully) have better educated people, which is usually a good thing.

I wonder if the GI Bill is a valid comparison. Look what happened to the US economy when vets returning from WW2 were given free college educations. Wiki says "By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

"Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that sped long-term economic growth."

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a similar shot in the ol' economy if millions of potential students are given access that they can't currently afford, or if those who are currently stretching to get degrees can graduate without being shackled with debt that prevents them from forming new households or starting businesses. In fact it's probably one of the smartest investments government could make, even allowing for some inevitable percentage of abusers and malingerers.

And yet, if you want a "free" college education, you can still use the G.I. Bill.

[Defiant]

(Stealing the idea from the West Wing)

If scholarships for students who do well isn't in the cards, how about a GI bill for Teachers? Get a free education, but you're required to teach in high schools in lower income areas for several years. For those people who don't want to be at risk of being shot at in order to get a college education. Well, shot in a different country, anyway.

[Combustible Lemur]

(Stealing the idea from the West Wing)

If scholarships for students who do well isn't in the cards, how about a GI bill for Teachers? Get a free education, but you're required to teach in high schools in lower income areas for several years. For those people who don't want to be at risk of being shot at in order to get a college education. Well, shot in a different country, anyway.

Not a good idea, teach for America while very good in intent was not so good in product. Inundating schools with apprentice teachers with no expectactation of then ever becoming journeymen?

[GreenGoo]

For me, I see it as an investment. Someone who has gone to college and done well will be 1) less likely to be unemployed 2) make more money 3) pay more taxes over their lifetime - more than enough to pay the cost of that education. Plus, we'll (hopefully) have better educated people, which is usually a good thing.

I wonder if the GI Bill is a valid comparison. Look what happened to the US economy when vets returning from WW2 were given free college educations. Wiki says "By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

"Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that sped long-term economic growth."

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a similar shot in the ol' economy if millions of potential students are given access that they can't currently afford, or if those who are currently stretching to get degrees can graduate without being shackled with debt that prevents them from forming new households or starting businesses. In fact it's probably one of the smartest investments government could make, even allowing for some inevitable percentage of abusers and malingerers.

And yet, if you want a "free" college education, you can still use the G.I. Bill.

But if the goal is economic growth, why hang an anchor around it? The G.I. Bill is clearly a bill to aid those served. It was not an economy based bill, or if it was, it was very narrowly focused. The RESULT has been a strong positive economic impact. Why not use the cause/effect relationship identified here to craft a new, different bill? One with different, but no less important goals of economic growth as well as helping newly minted adult citizens be productive and tax paying contributors to society in general?

Suggesting the GI bill is a solution only works if your only concern is the individual. If you are trying to solve economic and/or societal problems, then you need to look at the economic or societal factors involved. Who gives a shit if 20% (30%? 40%?) of those given a free ride drop out, if the net result is economic growth, a reduction in poverty and a reduction in crime?

There are so many benefits connected to a well educated population that putting barriers in the way of obtaining one is counter-productive.

Ok, so I'm not advocating a free ride either, but I have to wonder what problem you guys think a free education is solving, and why you don't think it's worth the cost.

If you focus too much on people want stuff for free, giving them stuff for free is a bad idea because capitalism, or work ethic, or life's hard, or whatever thought process being used, you lose sight of the benefits societal benefits. I realize that starts to sound and act like socialism, and that's bad, apparently, despite countless examples of other socialist things accepted daily, but...you know...economy and world competitiveness and such.

[LordMortis]

I wonder if the GI Bill is a valid comparison. Look what happened to the US economy when vets returning from WW2 were given free college educations. Wiki says "By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

The GI Bill/enlistment bonuses seems to shift. My little sister go some of her tuition done but not nearly enough and people who enlisted both before and after her pretty much got their college taken care of.

(Stealing the idea from the West Wing)

If scholarships for students who do well isn't in the cards, how about a GI bill for Teachers? Get a free education, but you're required to teach in high schools in lower income areas for several years. For those people who don't want to be at risk of being shot at in order to get a college education. Well, shot in a different country, anyway.

Not a good idea, teach for America while very good in intent was not so good in product. Inundating schools with apprentice teachers with no expectactation of then ever becoming journeymen?

Why is there no expectation of them ever becoming journeymen? Or do you mean stay as journeymen? That said, my limited was that younger, fresher teachers are more likely to engage with at risk students better than their veteran counterparts whom have burnt out and are collecting a check. (which is not to imply implicitly that veteran teachers in largely at risk districts burn out)

[noxiousdog]

Ok, so I'm not advocating a free ride either, but I have to wonder what problem you guys think a free education is solving, and why you don't think it's worth the cost.

If you focus too much on people want stuff for free, giving them stuff for free is a bad idea because capitalism, or work ethic, or life's hard, or whatever thought process being used, you lose sight of the benefits societal benefits. I realize that starts to sound and act like socialism, and that's bad, apparently, despite countless examples of other socialist things accepted daily, but...you know...economy and world competitiveness and such.

I'm not convinced the cost of education is an actual inhibitor to college. Is it an inhibitor to going to a private school? Yes. Is it an inhibitor to a four year degree? No. Not with the amount of needs and loans programs that exist.

[LordMortis]

I have to wonder what problem you guys think a free education is solving,

That's what needs to be addressed before demanding it. Right now, the justification is the free college solves the problem of crushing debt when you get out of college. That doesn't sell me.

I'm not convinced the cost of education is an actual inhibitor to college. Is it an inhibitor to going to a private school? Yes. Is it an inhibitor to a four year degree? No. Not with the amount of needs and loans programs that exist.

In hard knocks cases, I'm sure it is. Working at McDonald's full time, plus living four people in a two bed room apartment with all your own expenses, even makes paying for community college for future transfer to a four year college difficult. But likely the people aren't the people working up a six digit debt "getting the college experience" for a liberal arts degree that doesn't make payments on that debt and now want a financial do over.