Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 2

[“Why occupy Wall St. and Bay? For starters... fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one... the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not.” Oct. 25, G.Harrison, It Strikes me Funny]

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that occupiers of Wall St., Bay St., and Victoria Park (London, Ontario), to name but a few places, are planning to hunker down where they are in tents and sleeping bags for the North American winter in order to show solidarity to one another and stand behind their message that some things important to them must change.

During the winter some media commentators will still be asking the question ‘why occupy’ for some of the following reasons, among others of course:

because they don’t know what many citizens are thinking

because they know what the occupiers are thinking but don’t support their ideas and believe they should get a job

According to a recent poll, 31 per cent of Sun Media readers believe occupiers should be looking for work, but based on the ongoing struggles in the North American economy and the resultant high unemployment numbers (London is the centre of high unemployment in SW Ontario), the lack of work and good long-term full-time jobs may very well be one of the major reasons why people are taking to the streets in significant numbers to say something to any who will listen.


Though many may know about London leading the province with rates of 9 per cent or more, they will not know by personal experience how no job or a low-paying job affects a single mother or father or family trying hard to keep a roof over their head or the heat on through a long winter.

I don’t know what 9 per cent unemployment means myself. I know numbers of visitors to local food banks will rise because of it, but does 9 per cent mean that 91% are employed with productive, well-paying, full-time, long-term jobs and have nothing to complain about? Does 9 per cent track those without jobs or does it include those who are chronically under-employed? If not, does anyone know the percentage of people, young and old, who only earn enough to scrape by and are unable to save up funds for an uncertain future?

In Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges, Earnest Logan reportedly says the following:

The winters [in New York State] are really hard. There are less jobs and the heating costs are high. It is a struggle [for me]. But at least I have not had to devote forty hours a week to a minimum wage job that does not pay me a living wage. People here are really hurting. The real underemployment rate must be at least twenty per cent. A lot of people are working part-time jobs when they want full-time jobs. (pg. 5)

I would suspect Ontario’s underemployment rate is under 20 per cent but I don’t know for certain. I do know, however, if I was a young person with no decent prospects for a good job in the future, I might consider joining with others of like-mind and raise questions about, for starters, why the world works the way it does, why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and why steady work for adequate pay is so hard to find.

Why occupy?

More to follow.

***

Please click here to read Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

.

Occupy Wall Street, occupy Bay: “Why?” PT 1

[“(Ernest Logan) Bell, who lives in Lansing, New York, is the new face of resistance. He is young, at home in the culture of the military, deeply suspicious of the (US) Federal Government, dismissive of the liberal class, unable to find work, and angry.” pg. 2, Death of the Liberal Class]

Some members of local and national media will express surprise when considering the occupation of Wall St. in the US and Bay St. in Canada, to name but two streets where a collection of people from various walks of life are gathering or have gathered to ask or raise questions or make bold statements.

“Why?” some will ask, often rhetorically.

“What does this have to do with anything? What are they trying to say?” some will add.

I read in a recent poll offered by Sun Media in a local paper (Oct. 20, The London Free Press) that 31 per cent of respondents felt, dismissively, the occupiers should just ‘go find a job.’

As I’ve been reading an international bestseller entitled ‘Death of the Liberal Class’ by Chris Hedges, I’ve encountered comments and ideas that may help the media and other observers (some unenlightened, others enlightened but resistant to any change to the status quo) answer for themselves and others the question ‘why’.

The following is taken from Hedge’s conversation with Ernie Bell, NY:

(Bell says,) I believe all signs point to a real systemic economic collapse in the near future... I assure you it’s going to hurt everyone, except of course, the corporate and banking elite... the political system as it stands offers little hope for influencing real change or social justice... we must stand in the streets and refuse to be silenced. We must reject corporate-controlled politics and focus on rebuilding a localized political structure and society. A revolution is the only alternative to complete surrender and defeat. pg. 3


["South Africa's symbol of justice": link to photo]

Why occupy Wall St. and Bay?

For starters...

fear of another economic collapse, harder on families and communities than the last one

the knowledge that the corporate and banking elite grow richer while an increasing number of families do not

the political system offers little help for positive change or justice for many individuals and families

to shake a fist at selfish corporate policies and seemingly powerless corporate-controlled governments

to express support for the rebuilding of the political structure and society

to resist the attitude of surrender and defeat

Are there other identifiable, concrete reasons to occupy streets of significant address in countries across the globe?

***

Please click here to read more about resistance to change.

.

Freedom 75 PT 2: Oh, you can make big bucks on CPP

Hey, I’m back.

(And yes, that was the longest bathroom break on record).

Yesterday I mentioned that there is some good news related to retirements and pensions if you are Canadian.

For example:

“If you stay on the job until 70, payments could be $4,600 a year more (than if you retired at 65), based on maximum CPP benefits.” (Oct. 27, Brantford Expositor)

Goodness gracious. You could barely carry that much extra money around in a wheel barrow.


[“More money. I’ll stop making birdhouses”: photos GH]

I mean, that’s $383 MORE per month or about 13 bucks MORE per day.

I can hear you say, be still my beating heart.

But there’s more good news and you deserve it, especially if you’ve been staring at your computer screen while I’ve been ‘away.’ (That’s as nice as I can put it).

I also read the following in the same news article:

“By age 90, someone who retired at the age of 70 will have collected about $100,000 more from the CPP than someone who retired at 60.” (full article here)


[“I’ll finally be able to afford that boat trip!”]

Let me put that another way so you catch the full impact of the good news.

If you take a late retirement you will be graciously rewarded by the Canadian Government, to the tune of $4,600 MORE per year. That’s every year for the rest of your long and healthy life.

If you live until you’re 90 - and I know you want to - you’ll collect, free of charge (don’t even think about the work you would have to do between the ages of 66 - 70; it will be a cakewalk), another $100,000 to spend in any way that you wish.

Hopping down to the local coffee shop, that will be me!

Yes, I must admit, if you do the math it will be more like $92,000, but let’s not quibble right now. I can almost guarantee you won’t be quibbling if you reach 90.

So, after all the bad news I’ve been sharing recently (e.g., re THRIFT is dead), doesn’t the good news about our CPP make you smile?

It does me, that’s for darn sure.

The sense of optimism associated with the news carries on, I’m sure, when you read about the government’s reasons for suggesting such changes to our pension plan.

For example:

"The government has been tweaking the CPP to ease the burden on the state retirement system as the baby boom generation begins to leave the workforce. Concern is mounting over inadequate personal savings and the potential drag on the economy as new retirees find themselves facing a big drop in spending power.”

See?

The government doesn’t want the pension system to collapse and leave all us old-timers stranded.

The government knows our savings is kaput and wants to help us along. And an extra $100,000 (okay, okay, it’s more like $92,000) - talk about your Golden Handshake, eh, as long as they don’t squeeze your hand too tight.

Plus, the government doesn’t want us to be a drag on the all-important economy, and I know that’s what I’m going to be thinking about when I’m 90. Yes sir.

Nothing but good news here today.

***

More thoughts about Freedom 75 here

And here.

.

Would you storm Parliament Hill because of the HST?

People are hot about the Harmonized Sales Tax (coming to a grocery store, hardware store and every other store near you on July 1).

So hot, people want to storm the gates of parliament.

“If Ontarians organized and stormed parliaments in Toronto and/or Ottawa, things would change.” (May 14, Letter to Editor, London Free Press)

It’s not that I don’t feel the writer’s pain, or your pain, or my pain even. A lot of expenses are getting higher. (Please click here to read about Thing$ Going North $$)

But here we are, with personal debt growing into the stratosphere by the minute - most of which we agreed to bear, i.e., when we took out a big mortgage, or big car payment, or bought furniture on credit, etc.


["We want it all. A good thing?"]

And here we are with national debt at record levels, i.e., it’s approaching $600 billion, a Canadian record. Ontario’s provincial debt is approaching $200 billion, another record.

And we know we can’t pay off all our debts by cutting a bit here and a bit there.

Why, recent yelling at the government to be more accountable with its expenses is laudable - but so laughable at the same time.

Certainly, accountability is good. But you could cancel all government expenses, including salaries (and send all MPs and Senators down the St. Lawrence R. on an ice berg), and put the $500 million savings per year toward our aforementioned current debts and what would you solve? Almost nothing, unless you think paying off the debt in 4,000 years is a stellar accomplishment that your grandkids will thank you for.

Really, there has to be a massive overall in how we think and act about our limited resources, financial and otherwise.

Me? I think, if the HST reduces our consumption habits to a small degree or makes us think twice about buying that extra bag of Chips Ahoy cookies, then it’s not a bad thing.

If you want to storm the gates, be my guest.

.

My Point of View: Cliff’s lack of oversight cost us $451,000

$451,000 (and a pat on the head). That’s how much Diane Beattie received for doing her job very poorly before being shown the door.

$451,000. That’s a pile of money. Our money.

Cliff Nordal, president and ceo London Health Sciences Centre, failed to do his job as her boss before handing her a pink slip and final pay packet. And what a pay packet!

When I retired after 32 years of brilliant service with the London and now Thames Valley District School Bd., I received three things:

an old Stromberg-Carlson radio


a gratuity based on a portion of the worth of my unused sick days

a reminder from Paul E. (Gr. 7 teacher): Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

Diane Beattie deserves none of the above, let alone thousands upon thousands of dollars.


["My retirement gift was approved": photos GAH]

It’s a travesty far worse than the Highland Country Club tax deal and Cliff Nordal should pay us back.

***

Phil McLeod tells a more detailed story and provides analysis you should all read at www.philipmcleod.ca

.

From mini-putt to mini-protest at the Highland Country Club

When Michael M., a local mini-putt whiz, heard about the $2.4 million tax break enjoyed by London’s Highland golf club, he said, “Homeowners don’t get subsidies. Those property taxes could be used to pay for kids’ programs, upgrades to parks, whatever the city needs.”

[Link to article in today’s London Free Press]

Not a bad comment off the top of his head while a microphone was stuck under his nose.


[When that happens to me my nose gets itchy, I break into a sweat and say stuff like, who are you, why is this microphone covered in grip tape, can’t... talk... now... mind... is... blank. Sorry, I digress. Oh, I wouldn’t say 'sorry, I digress' into a mike.]

And I agree with Mike.

Which begs the question: Why does a wealthy, exclusive golf club get a tax break? And not me? Or you?

And I also think this situation demands a mini-protest.

But what form should it take?

***

Ideas will be read and considered thoroughly.

However, forget about lobbing golf balls at the clubhouse.

I don’t want anyone to get hurt around here. I just want the money back.

.

Deforest City Blues: 100 ordinary citizens deserve Highland Country Club tax deal

If the way to stroke wealthy golfers is to give them a $2.4 million break on their taxes, then I think it’s only fair City Hall give 100 families a $2,400 break for 10 years to make par.

A $1,200 break for 200 families for 10 years would also fly, like a well struck Titleist over a deep bunker.


[Don’t worry about me, City Hall. Though I can’t afford Highland’s $12,000 upfront membership fee and $5,000 annual year, I can handle my own property taxes for now. I know many other Londoners, however, feel like they’re knee deep in a sand trap at tax time.]

Another way to look at it:

Since Highland has received a $2.4 million break from the citizens of Deforest City, it owes those same people an equal amount of service.

What can Highland Country Club do for its community in lieu of money?

Free golf? Free use of their dining room, bar, grounds? Let’s think about it.

At present, Highland Country Club’s board has thought about it and has “told its members it doesn’t plan to consider changes to the arrangement.”

Really? I get teed off when I hear stuff like that.

[Link to article in today’s London Free Press]

***

Why does an exclusive golf club get such a great deal?

What was City Hall thinking when the tax deal was inked, 45 years ago?

.