Wall Street Protests

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

It's seems to be an accurate term to describe someone living out of their car. If 'bum' what you're objecting to I have no problem not using it.

I know a guy who spent years living out of his van. He's a licensed electrician. So living out of his van makes him a bum? Because he didn't pay rent or property taxes?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Sbonn

I would also like to say that donated clothing could very well be purchased for nominal prices from goodwill and like places and still be considered donated clothing..

There's endless what-ifs. If you review the bidding, you'll find my point was that the clothing in question was likely manufactured by a firm financed by a bank. It's very existence is dependent on the banking system. The path it took to get on KV's body is decidedly secondary to that fundamental point.

The same point could, with near ironclad certainty, be made about the car in question.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I know a guy who spent years living out of his van. He's a licensed electrician. So living out of his van makes him a bum? Because he didn't pay rent or property taxes?

I'd say the term applies, in the same way that someone living out of their camper at a ski resort is a 'ski bum' or a guy sleeping on the beach is a 'beach bum'. The majority of both have jobs of some sort at least some of the time, but are still bums.

That said, this is a long-winded digression from my central points as earlier stated.

[Shift]

Things I Learned From This Thread:

1. Alternative lifestyles are bad. Follow what everyone else is doing. The crowd is never wrong.

2. Used goods are only for the very poor. When capable people buy used, society loses respect for them. The correct way for a capable person to spend money is to buy new and throw it in a landfill when they are done with it.

3. There is a direct correlation between the amount of taxes you pay and your worth as a person.

4. In order to not be classified as homeless, one must live in a structure with no less than four walls and a roof. This structure must be stationary and be owned/rented by the person living in it, regardless if this suits their lifestyle. If one does not abide by these rules, the money police will find them and call them a bum.

5. Just because someone calls you a bum, doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes the other person a bum because it takes one to know one. Case closed.

[moonrambler]

@ Snerp -- you can see another, more pragmatic, reason the forum doesn't allow name-calling -- it tends to completely derail the thread.

@ Everybody -- if you're interested in a separate thread about what constitutes homeless/parasites/bums and so on, say so and I'll see about splitting up this thread. In the meantime, let's see if we can get back to the original topic, ok?

[Sbonn]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

let's see if we can get back to the original topic, ok?

Which was lack of coverage of the protests on wall street by the mainstream news.

HUGS Moonrambler!

[Radicalmommy]

I support them and I wish I was there. First of all, the banks and Wall St. while no one can dispute the fact that they are greedy for me is just a metaphor and starting place for people who are fed up with a government who supports the rich getting richer while the poor working class (the backbone of those getting rich) get less and less until the point where all they do is toil like slaves all day for a wage that couldn't sustain a single dog or cat in any comfortable or respectable lifestyle.

That my friends is the real issue at hand and the worst part of it is the underlying insidious deceit of it all that tells us "if only you work harder" you too can be a part of the American dream.

The Dream is DEAD and it has been for a long time. The disparity between those who can make it and those who can't (no matter what the hell they do) grows wider everyday. Seriously, have you walked through Walmart lately and been greeted by someone older than your grandmother? And what about providing help for the not thousands but MILLIONS of homeless people in this country most of whom are either single parents, the abused, the disabled, veterans, and the mentally ill?

The issue is the inequality of wealth distribution. And yes it's going to get worse!

Personally, I am disgusted and ashamed (and frightened) that my news channels think the American people should be censored to what is happening in their own country. What? Are they afraid of us? Afraid we will wake up out of our obedient sleep and smell the revolution? That is exactly what it is.

Nobody, especially my own government really wants someone like me to have a voice after all who would make their beds and bring them their morning coffee?

You GO! Occupy Wall Street and this is only the beginning because the people have had enough and if you think this is a small demonstration you are mistaken, it grows daily and so it should.

Enough is enough! My children want a future too!

[newmark]

The story is being covered by the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Humanity needs a new locus of power, something that is not money, religion, science, primal dominance, nationalism, communism or any of the things we have tried thus far. That is what these protests are about, whether the protesters know it or not.

What do you think this new locus of power would look like?

The locus of power I hope for is an internal one, where each individual looks within themselves and follows their own intuition and intelligence. However, this is difficult, even for quite aware people. it's easier to follow or blame things in the external world.

[Solipsist]

I have been working on a decent blog post for this topic for the past few days, and though the effort has been quite a task, due to the media blackout, it has been quite an adventure. I have even been chatting with a few of the protesters. The main principle I maintain for the blog is a semblance of objectivity, but here, I feel more free to opine.

In all frankness, I really want to support the protest, because in all my research and attempts to simply understand what's going on in the world, I think that this protest, which is now commencing in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Los Angeles, hits upon the core problem that the world currently finds itself in--that economic and political forces have colluded, and have corrupted the global system to the point where the common individual has lost all opportunity for any upward social mobility. As the information age evolves, ever more are becoming aware of this, and so ever more of those having lost opportunity are simply fed up. The politicians they vote for, or even may potentially vote for, are all too often co-opted into this corrupt system, and so their only recourse is to "occupy", however peacefully intended, those symbolic centers that represent the collusion and corruption, beginning with Wall Street.

However, while I think the protesters are definitely onto something, in their lack of organization and concrete plan of action, I also see the "irrational mob" aspects of the protest that prevent them, not only from being taken seriously, but also from effectively solving the very problem they're protesting against. Moreover, I also see a considerable amount of leftist sentiment that, in my opinion, is no answer to alleviating the problems caused by the "monied interests". Indeed, there are leftist "monied interests", also, that are part of the problem.

Because I, too, understand that there is what I call a corporatocracy, under the guise of democracy, now running the world, I am certainly with them in spirit. I, too, struggle for that upward social mobility, and I, too, am prevented from doing so at every turn by the corporatist influences that have infinitely more power, money, and ambition than myself. But I also understand that capitalism is competetive in nature, and accept the responsibility for the choices I have made in my life, and am not one to jump into a mob to point a finger of blame at those who have made choices different from me.

For while it is true that all politicians are, anymore, inherent liars, and corrupt, it is we as a whole, we "who are one", as the protestors yell, who voted those politicians into the office that they have corrupted. And while it is true that corporations run the world, it is we as a whole, who have bought their mortgages and their cars and their big screen televisions. It reminds me of the old addage that when you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you.

Nonetheless, I think that what they're doing is extremely important, if only to raise the awareness of the corporatist elements that now run the world. And to that end, they have all my support.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

For while it is true that all politicians are, anymore, inherent liars, and corrupt, it is we as a whole, we "who are one", as the protestors yell, who voted those politicians into the office that they have corrupted.

I think the corruption would have happened whoever you voted for. And in countries with lots of parties, the ones who get voted for are more likely to corrupt things in the way you describe, because they've been funded in return for future favours, and generally the more money you have to run your campaign the better.

And while it is true that corporations run the world, it is we as a whole, who have bought their mortgages and their cars and their big screen televisions. It reminds me of the old addage that when you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you.

This is an interesting one. I agree, but the deck is not stacked in our favour due to advertising, marketing etc. It seems like if you pour enough money into an advertising campaign you can make people do anything. But yeah, you still have the choice -- even if it's tough one (e.g., new season of Dexter starts today, I'll be in front of a big screen TV watching it!).

[WarrenG]

I heard Chomsky supports these protests. It'd be cool if he showed up on Wall Street and joined in. That's the sort of thing that might rally more people to get involved.

[moonrambler]

NPR has been reporting on it.

Mainstream coverage is ramping up now that there were ~700 arrests.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I have been working on a decent blog post for this topic for the past few days, and though the effort has been quite a task, due to the media blackout, it has been quite an adventure.

Done.

Originally Posted by WarrenG

I think the corruption would have happened whoever you voted for. And in countries with lots of parties, the ones who get voted for are more likely to corrupt things in the way you describe, because they've been funded in return for future favours, and generally the more money you have to run your campaign the better.

Indeed, I agree. Which is why, most often, I don't even vote for anyone, anymore (though I still vote on ballot measures). I also think that more are aware of the corruption than people might think, as evidenced by an increasing tendency to simply not vote at all.

And yes, it generally takes oodles of funds to get elected, which is a big part of the problem. However, by voting for those who have raised those funds from entities who stand to gain future favors, we only contribute to the problem, rather than solve it, whether we realize it or not.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

NPR has been reporting on it.

Mainstream coverage is ramping up now that there were ~700 arrests.

Yes, this thing is getting bigger.

I'm not saying that anything substantive will come out of this, but I really think this a major and growing thing that, if nothing else happens, will end up in the history books for some time.

[Solipsist]

Before the namecalling, there was a seed of a very interesting discussion in this thread, and I just wanted to chime in on some of the points previously mentioned...

Originally Posted by rawxstasy

I think if this were covered in the mainstream news more unemployed and angry people would show up to the protest.

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

This is exactly why they didn't cover the protest. The mainstream news knows who holds their leash.

Agreed. The "mainstream" media are corporations, and as such, they're an example of the corruption of the very entities that are the subject of the protests.

Even if it is covered by the mainstream media, it will likely only be topical coverage, at best.

Originally Posted by danas

I keep getting invited to go down there by friends etc...
But I stay away. I cant handle violence in any way. In the past Ive been to "peace"/violent protests had my cameras broken etc...
and its just not for me...

Just wanted to say, danas, that it's okay, and that I empathize. No one should be forced to protest themselves to prove support.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Fact is, if you don't have banks people are un(der)employed, starving, homeless, uneducated, poorly clothed, and certainly not posting on the internet. Which, if you look at the parts of the world where there isn't a strong banking system, is pretty much how the median person lives. Everyone posting on this board, by virtue of being able to post here, owes a MASSIVE debt of gratitude to banking that I suspect many of you fail to grasp.

I just wanted to note that despite the existence of banks, there are still plenty of un(der)employed, starving, homeless, uneducated, poorly clothed people who don't use the internet. So, I think this argument fails.

Regarding the MASSIVE debt of gratitude to banking for being able to post here, I simply fail to follow the logic. For that matter, I fail to find logic in gratitude for the banking system for anything. It has certainly done nothing for me except demand that I return to them interest as well as the principle on debt that I have had to contract, in most cases, just to survive. Even the dollar bills I earn from wages (in a debt-based monetary system) are only pieces of paper saying that someone owes someone something. All of this is certainly nothing for me to be grateful for.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

The people "responsible" were first and foremost politicians, not bankers. The desire to create a huge number of mortgages in the US was a political desire, not an economic necessity.

Actually, I would argue that both politicians and bankers are responsible for the mortgage situation. It's a collusive collaboration. That's why people are protesting.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Also consider that the government mandated demand by pensions for high yield bonds was one of 3-4 big factors that created the mortgage crisis. When pensions are required by law to hold high-grade bonds, and the supply of bonds is low grade (as mortgages always will be) it in effect become a government mandate to pretend that low grade debt is in fact investment grade. The banks were simply playing out a script written by the government.

This actually gets into the detail of the collusion--government writes laws through which the banks profit, while at the same time, creating regulatory bodies that are supposed to keep them in check. Unfortunately, the regulatory bodies are established only to make government appear more credible, while in effect, it only obscures the collusion in the first place.

But don't kid yourself, both the banks as well as the Feds are responsible for the mortgage issues. This is not to mention those who (rather foolishly, imo) bought the overvalued properties and took out the banks' subprime loans in the first place.

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

I'm not sure what these people hope to accomplish, besides creating a disturbance in a busy urban area. Instead of taking personal responsibility for their own situations, they're directing their anger at entities that cannot be held accountable for their negative circumstances.

If life deals you lemons, what you don't do is pelt them at people who happened to be lucky enough to score a few oranges.

I agree that failing to take responsibility by casting blame on others serves no purpose. I also like your analogy.

But, the problem is that the ones who have scored the oranges now hold ALL the oranges, while the ones dealt the lemons are prevented from ever scoring a single orange.

Originally Posted by Solluna

It's the infamous hackers named Anonymous. I wouldn't be surprised if Bank of America is next.

Good call ...

Dozens arrested after foreclosure protesters target Bank of America | Mail Online

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Most of those risky bets were in essence mandated by the government. The government made the banks extend their mortgage offers to ever-poorer buyers. Was it a risky bet? Sure. Would the banks have take the bet if an alphabet soup of federal regulators didn't force them to? No. If you go back to the 70's before the government got in the mortgage game in a big way, you'll see that money center and investment banks wanted nothing to do with mortgages because of the risk and their erratic behavior. In 1978 there wasn't a single bank on Wall Street with a mortgage department. Mortgages were almost entirely the domain of thrifts (aka savings and loans). The government moved them into the Wall Street domain and created mortgage bonds as a means of bailing out thrifts that had mismanaged their mortgage portfolios and were going under.

Again, more detail regarding the collusion.

First of all, the government didn't have to bail out the thrifts. It would have been more productive to let them fail. But, that the thrifts failed in the first place doesn't lend any credibility to the bankers responsible for the failures in the first place. Are you suggesting that we blame government for the thrifts' mismanaged mortgage portfolios?

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Humanity needs a new locus of power, something that is not money, religion, science, primal dominance, nationalism, communism or any of the things we have tried thus far. That is what these protests are about, whether the protesters know it or not.

Excellent comment. And one to ponder.

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Trust me, there is no shortage whatsoever of donated clothing in this country. Thrift shop warehouses have it up to the rafters. They don't even know what to do with it all.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

And that speaks highly of the commitment to charity in the US. But most people, when donating clothes, are trying to help someone in need (which I'll define as someone who would like to support themselves, but due to circumstances can't) rather support an intentional drop-out life style.

I really don't think the donation of clothes is really much in the way of charity, since clothes are so much an example of planned obsolescence, anymore.

I also don't think that there's really the "commitment to charity" in the U.S. about which you so highly speak. Charitable contributions serve as a great way of getting a tax deduction, and if I made the money that some corporate CEOs make, I'd be more likely to be contributing out of a sense of guilt, than out of any "commitment to charity." Not to discredit those who do contribute, but on the whole, I don't think that a corporate executive making tens of millions of dollars a year, donating even a couple of thousands of dollars worth of used clothes would qualify as a "commitment to charity".

Originally Posted by Radicalmommy

You GO! Occupy Wall Street and this is only the beginning because the people have had enough and if you think this is a small demonstration you are mistaken, it grows daily and so it should.

Absolutely!

[Peterw]

We used to have a mass protest event in the city of London every May but they didn't do it this year. I think maybe because someone died at the last one.

I haven't heard too much about the Wall St protests - perhaps they were worried that after the London riots it could turn nasty if it was publicised enough?

I'm not sure what side of the fence I'm on here. One the one hand I'm currently employed by a bank as an IT contractor and I am specialising in this sector as my personal business plan involves making a cr@p load of money to put into my trading business and this is the fastest way for me to do it.

On the other hand, before I got this gig I had the worst 2 years of my career during the recession and almost went bankrupt were it not for a few small gigs that kept me afloat. I walk around the area where I work which is the heart of the financial sector in the UK (Canary Wharf) and I see people with attitudes and money that they have not in my eyes earnt. They got bailed out by the tax payer and are still taking pay and bonuses that have got everyone up in arms.

But... they are paying my invoice every week and serving my purpose. Is this a selfish approach on my part? Is it right that so many people are out of work while these guys continue paying £1000 on a bottle of champaign and ordering cocaine and hookers to their offices?

Frankly they make me sick but I'll forgo telling them that and quietly build up my reserves. I'll just remind myself that I'm here for one reason and 1 reason only. It's my choice and I choose to wear a suit, that doesn't make me one of them though.

[russianrocket]

So everything I've been reading about them, pretty much has MANY of them being qouted as saying that causing police as much trouble as possible, is a good thing. Getting arrested and maced is a good thing. Because those actions bring more support for their cause. If they didn't get arrested, or maced, and were just peacefully sitting there, then no one would ever hear about it.

They also seem to think that voting for Obama is going to fix all their problems, and it appears that the growing dislike for Obama and his possible non existent second term is what's really fueling these protests.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Frankly they make me sick but I'll forgo telling them that and quietly build up my reserves. I'll just remind myself that I'm here for one reason and 1 reason only. It's my choice and I choose to wear a suit, that doesn't make me one of them though.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation myself, presently working for a corporation (though I wear no suit, thankfully). Hence, I empathize.

In my view, I don't see corporations themselves as the enemy, any more than I see capitalism as an enemy. Rather, I see the collusion between the corporations and government as the fundamental problem that needs desperately to be corrected. As for the CEOs making 9-figure salaries, I really think a simple cap would be effective. But nothing at all is likely to happen, as long as there is collusion.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

So everything I've been reading about them, pretty much has MANY of them being qouted as saying that causing police as much trouble as possible, is a good thing. Getting arrested and maced is a good thing. Because those actions bring more support for their cause. If they didn't get arrested, or maced, and were just peacefully sitting there, then no one would ever hear about it.

They also seem to think that voting for Obama is going to fix all their problems, and it appears that the growing dislike for Obama and his possible non existent second term is what's really fueling these protests.

The reason they suggest that getting arrested is a good thing, is because of the corporate media shutting them out.

But, as for Obama, I've talked at some length with those involved, including regarding support for Obama, and while they've admitted that some of the protesters might support a particular candidate, the movement itself really isn't about trying to get government to fix the problem, because most of them understand that government is part of the problem.

The thing is, this movement is comprised of dems and republicans and libertarians and jews and arabs and mexicans and, well, people of all stripes, who see the corporate corruption, and simply want their voices to be heard. Because of the mish-mash of voices, needless to say, there will be some who support Obama, and some who don't.

The thing is, that people are led to believe whatever the particular media they're watching want them to believe. Fox news reports will have a right-wing bias, while MSNBC will likely be spinning from the left-wing. But, to really understand what's going on, it's really best to talk to the people who are there. If you do, you'll see that there's really no specific direction the movement is taking. Rather, it is, by design, in fact, rather fluid, and being allowed to move in whatever direction its participants move it, as a body.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

They also seem to think that voting for Obama is going to fix all their problems,

1. Are people really this naive?
2. Worked great the first time!

[Brutha]

Frankly they make me sick but I'll forgo telling them that and quietly build up my reserves. I'll just remind myself that I'm here for one reason and 1 reason only. It's my choice and I choose to wear a suit, that doesn't make me one of them though.

And what's exactly the difference between you and them? You are simply interested into making as much money as possible. They are simply interested into making as much money as possible.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Brutha

And what's exactly the difference between you and them? You are simply interested into making as much money as possible. They are simply interested into making as much money as possible.

I think the difference between them is a sense of ethics, which is often not only lacking in the upper echelons of a corporate environment, but can actually become a weakness, especially when one is "interested in making as much money as possible", unconcerned about the consequences of the actions it may take to do that.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I think the difference between them is a sense of ethics, which is often not only lacking in the upper echelons of a corporate environment, but can actually become a weakness, especially when one is "interested in making as much money as possible", unconcerned about the consequences of the actions it may take to do that.

Whos ethics? We aren't born with ethics. What arbitrary set of ethics are you speaking of?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Whos ethics? We aren't born with ethics. What arbitrary set of ethics are you speaking of?

I mean any ethics.

Why do you think people are in the streets to begin with? They witness behavior in the corporate environment that is in many, if not most cases, completely unethical.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I mean any ethics.

Why do you think people are in the streets to begin with? They witness behavior in the corporate environment that is in many, if not most cases, completely unethical.

Any ethics? How about Sharia Law?

As I said, ethics are arbitrary. They change depending on what year and what country/village you were born in. Some would say that killing someone in battle is against ethics. Some say killing someone in battle is fully ethical. Some say killing a cow is not ethical. Some say it's perfectly ethical. Lets not play around with words here

Why do I think people are in the streets protesting? Because they believe they believe the world is plotting against them in some way. Go to a small village in Africa, and ask show them the videos of protesters, and they'd laugh. Show Americans videos of France protests, wanting more and more free time, and more and more "gimmie" rights, and we'll laugh at them.

What they witness in the corporate environment, is something that THEY don't agree with. Whether something is ethical or not, is beyond the point. Is it illegal? I thought laws govern ethics?

People protest, because they have gotten something for so long, and feel entitled to it. They feel that things should be exactly the way they want them to be. As someone in here mentioned, the protests are fluid. So, really, who the hell knows why they are out there. You have a bunch of people with different beliefs, fighting for their own beliefs. BELIEFS and PERCEPTIONS is all this comes down to. Both of which are 100% open to interpretation.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

BELIEFS and PERCEPTIONS is all this comes down to. Both of which are 100% open to interpretation.

Indeed, including yours.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

There's endless what-ifs. If you review the bidding, you'll find my point was that the clothing in question was likely manufactured by a firm financed by a bank. It's very existence is dependent on the banking system. The path it took to get on KV's body is decidedly secondary to that fundamental point.

The same point could, with near ironclad certainty, be made about the car in question.

The issue is that there is no alternative. If the requirement to protest a corrupt system is to use nothing it provides, regardless of how essential it is to your existence or your ability to communicate with the world, then nothing will ever change.

This is the same line of bs parents throw at their children when they're treating them like **** and want them to behave. "I feed you! I clothe you!" They signed up for the job when they had the kid; they don't get brownie points for maintaining the child's existence when the consequences for not doing so are so dire they could never realistically do it. That the child can't feed or clothe itself up to a certain age is not an argument in favor of being grateful toward/respecting their parents.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Brutha

And what's exactly the difference between you and them? You are simply interested into making as much money as possible. They are simply interested into making as much money as possible.

The differences between myself and them is that I didn't crash the financial system causeing global recession and carry on paying myself massive bonuses to spend on champaign, drugs and prostitutes at the tax payer's expense.

My business model is actually very similar to theirs and as far as making as much money as I can, that's an essential part of my plan. I don't intend on screwing anyone over in the process though.

Right now I'm not in a position to turn down work because I don't agree with the ethics of the company providing it. However I intend to be in that position within around 12 months. But it will involve more financial sector work unless I can find anything else that pays as well.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Peterw

My business model is actually very similar to theirs and as far as making as much money as I can, that's an essential part of my plan. I don't intend on screwing anyone over in the process though.

Right now I'm not in a position to turn down work because I don't agree with the ethics of the company providing it. However I intend to be in that position within around 12 months. But it will involve more financial sector work unless I can find anything else that pays as well.

As I said, ethics.

I have no issues with capitalism, nor with corporations, per se. But, in my experience, there is a line that a person involved with either reaches, and either they cross that line, or they don't, or simply can't, because it conflicts with the "better angels of their nature". In some circles, it's called a "conscience". There's nothing "wrong" with making money. But when a person screws people (sometimes many people) to make that money, one is bound to get a backlash, somewhere.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

As I said, ethics.

I have no issues with capitalism, nor with corporations, per se. But, in my experience, there is a line that a person involved with either reaches, and either they cross that line, or they don't, or simply can't, because it conflicts with the "better angels of their nature". In some circles, it's called a "conscience". There's nothing "wrong" with making money. But when a person screws people (sometimes many people) to make that money, one is bound to get a backlash, somewhere.

I have no issues with capitalism or making money either. The way I see it you get out of life what you put in. If you want to sit around and do nothing go for it. If you want to devote your life to helping others go for it. If you want to make do with a secure job/career then go for it. If you want to become financially free and end up with the option of sitting around and getting paid handsomely for it go for it!

I actually have no issues with the bank I'm at right now as they didn't really contriubute to the crash and they run a lot of charitable/philanthropic initiatives as well. I also have no ethical issues with setting up a business that does no more than trade in the financial markets. Plenty of people are judging me on that one though which is fine, they are entitled to their opinions and I'm entitled to ignore them.

I like my plan and I'm following it and it's working out. That's my choice, I respect your choice if you have a different plan