Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3128 times:
We don't know yet. But I can say for sure that it will be the dirtiest campaign in US history. The lies and distortions being put out already - 6 months before the election - by Obama even caused Arianna Huffington to call them "despicable".
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16315 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3122 times:
Quoting aloges (Reply 4): I think it's his election to lose.
Really? I was under the impression that the rupublicans would be way ahead, and so many were too dissappointed with Obama. Well, that's what media from the US makes me thing at least.
I for one hope it will be Obama, Romney doesn't seem like any good.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
It's unlikely we'll have a clear idea until election day.
Lies and distortions have become an emblem of American elections over the past 20-30 years. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign didn't focus on the achievements of the Republican administration, or the expectations of the next term, but instead sought to paint Kerry as a wimpy, wishy-washy, will-say-anything-to-get-elected candidate. And the tactic was very successful.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting Emirates773ER (Reply 9): It is nothing compared to the clown the republicans have put up. Romney will get smacked in the face on this one.
Examples? I haven't heard him say any whoppers yet.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8392 posts, RR: 47 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2995 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): Examples? I haven't heard him say any whoppers yet.
You must have been asleep several times when he was trying to relate to the "real America" (TM). One such example is "My wife drives a couple of Cadillacs."
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7504 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Well, it is a very weird election. We know the Christian right will lose -- neither candidate is accepted as a real Christian. We also know a defense hawk will win.
The only difference appears to be Romney's talent with managing money. Otherwise they are politically identical.
varigb707 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1229 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14409 posts, RR: 26 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 6977 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2839 times:
Obama might squeak in but it is going to be a hell of a campaign. Indiana is lost for certain and Pennsylvania is a close toss-up unlike last time but many of the states that Obama barely won are still up for grabs. As the Baba O'Riley song from The Who goes; "Obama" has to fight for his meals.
[Edited 2012-05-03 11:45:30]
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Quoting 2707200X (Reply 18): Obama might squeak in but it is going to be a hell of a campaign. Indiana is lost for certain and Pennsylvania is a close toss-up unlike last time but many of the states that Obama barely won are still up for grabs. As the Baba O'Riley song from The Who song goes; "Obama" has to fight for his meals.
It's too early to declare any state, other than those that are historically solid red or blue, "lost for certain." In 2004, when it appeared Ohio would be "lost for certain" (regardless of the Democratic challenger), the Republicans hastily proposed a state amendment prohibiting gay marriage to the ballot. They then launched a grassroots campaign, going door-to-door, organizing voter registration drives, etc. to spread awareness. Many political scientists like to point out that Democratic turnout was lower-than-expected and Republican turnout higher-than-expected that year, suggesting the gay marriage ban -- which ultimately passed by a healthy margin -- gave Bush Ohio and thus the election.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10566 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Personally, I think it's way too close to call and a lot can happen between now and then.
JETSTAR From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1530 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
3 things come into play,
Number 1, if Obama loses a few key states that he marginally carried last time, he is in trouble, and some early polls are showing he is going to have a tough time carrying these states again, not saying he will lose all of them but the Democrats will have to spend a lot of money and Obama a lot of time in these states this time.
Number 2, the independent registered voters, who could go either way, with some early polls showing them slightly leaning towards voting Republican.
Number 3, will the blacks come out and vote in the huge numbers like they did 4 years ago where they helped Obama carry some normally Republican southern states, tune in November 6th to find out.
Remember, he is not running against a ticket that had Sarah Palin on it, the Democrats had a field day with her especially whenever she opened her mouth and said something stupid, she cost the Republicans a lot of votes.
A lot of things can happen between now and November 6th.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
Quoting JETSTAR (Reply 26): Remember, he is not running against a ticket that had Sarah Palin on it, the Democrats had a field day with her especially whenever she opened her mouth and said something stupid, she cost the Republicans a lot of votes.
Most polling indicated Palin "excited" the right-ring base, bringing people to the polls who otherwise would not have voted. It's thought that if Palin hadn't been in the race, a state like GA may have went to Obama (due to the large black turnout alongside low conservative turn out).
In 2004, early polling showed Kerry with the lead but a masterful campaign by Bush (as I outlined above) ultimately lead to his narrow re-election.
It's worth mentioning that a "win" by Obama may ultimately be a long-term loss for the Democratic Party. Although Bush was re-elected in 2004, lingering resentment lead to the Democrats taking control of both Congress chambers (beginning in 2006) as well as the Presidency. After Bush's re-election, most top political scientists agreed that the Republican revolution would continue well into the future, as existing policy (Grandmastering, the difficulty in ousting incumbent Congressman due to financial & procedural disadvantages, etc.) would make it nearly impossible for the Democrats to regain control of Congress. Should Obama be re-elected, perhaps history will repeat itself.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2650 times:
As of this November, I will be a voter for 40 years and as a teen and child, I have been interested in politics and usually pro-Democrat due to various influences. I believe it will be a narrow win in overall votes and electoral votes for President Obama.
The degree of difference will be subject to factors, most importantly the overall economic issues with the USA, but also the Euro crises, the decisions of the SCOTUS as to the Health Care laws, a very serious overseas crises with Iran or North Korea or some surprise issue we are not sure of yet. We don't know who Romney will choose for a VP candidate and he hopes he won't choose one that will hurt. Changes in Congressional districts, including ones heavily influenced by the Republican dominate state could affect the voting outcome. Unlike 1968 or 1992, we probably won't see a 3rd party candidate that will get enough votes to affect the outcome so it will really be a one-on-one battle.
As others suggest, it really will be hate-filled campaign by both sides. I am afraid some ads and things said will tip over the line; we have already seen that as to the bashing of Romney saying he wouldn't have taken out Osama bin Laden if had been President. Romney has been long bashing Obama on being a 'socialist'.
I am also concerned that many won't vote. Some on the right as see Romney as too centrist or due to his Mormon/LDS faith. On the left, some won't vote as unhappy with Obama. Already the labor unions are not showing much love for Obama and the Democrats as not doing enough to protect their members and workers in general and not cracking down on excesses of Corporations and the richest Americans. Some independents may not vote at all due to dirty and horrendous overspending on campaigning, issues or believing their vote will be worthless as the politicians are not talking about policy that will help them get a job, get out of their debt hole or make them feel more financially secure.
kiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2044 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
For the gamblers among us, the bookies have Obama to hold on at pretty short odds of $1.40 with the Republicans paying $2.75
So for anyone who genuinly believes that Romney will take it, find yourself an online gaming website and stick the house on Republican as $2.75 is pretty good money.
My belief, Obama will hold on. Not for any policy or performance reason, just voter sentiment.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2581 times:
Obama will win, no problem, he has done a good job and has a lot more good work to do.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2517 times:
Quoting JETSTAR (Reply 26): Remember, he is not running against a ticket that had Sarah Palin on it, the Democrats had a field day with her especially whenever she opened her mouth and said something stupid, she cost the Republicans a lot of votes.
There was nothing the GOP could have done to win in 08, the GFC and bailouts that they got the blame for (mostly the prior) put the nail in the coffin. They could have resurrected Reagan and there wouldn't have been a chance.
No, but he is running against the most disliked nominee in decades whom has to say that his own policy (the basis for Obamacare) was a mistake.
Also if Romney picks a running mate that is there to energize the base he better home he/she is smart and knows their s*hit.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 31):
Obama will win, no problem, he has done a good job and has a lot more good work to do.
Unless the dems get congress back then he is going to get stonewalled for the next 4 years. He will be more aggressive sure but he is going to face the same opposition.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1): We don't know yet. But I can say for sure that it will be the dirtiest campaign in US history. The lies and distortions being put out already - 6 months before the election - by Obama even caused Arianna Huffington to call them "despicable".
I agree that its going to be dirty for the reason that it works but don't try and say the democrats are going to be worse as they are up against a guy who spent $122 million getting the nomination, mostly on negative adds.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 32): There was nothing the GOP could have done to win in 08, the GFC and bailouts that they got the blame for (mostly the prior) put the nail in the coffin.
Bush was struggling against a GOP-controlled Congress late into his first term. Ideally, many within the GOP would've liked to have replaced Bush with somebody further to the right, but such candidate would've stood little chance within the general election. The 2004 election was arguably the Democrat's to lose; a very successful campaign by Bush (as I outlined above) coupled with renewed feelings about the economy lead to his re-election. Exit polling in 2006 made it clear the American people wanted sweeping change within Congress. With or without the economic collapse, the 2008 election would've been difficult for the GOP to win.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 28): As others suggest, it really will be hate-filled campaign by both sides.
Newt Gingrich is often credited with inventing hate-triad politics when he took his messages to C-SPAN in the mid-1980s. By the early 1990s, the platform had been elevated and birthed the Republican Revolution. Today, both parties embrace such tactics. And sadly, these are often the highest rated radio and television programs. Until people learn to think for themselves, this is unlikely to change.
stratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1621 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Personally I hate MItt or "mittens" as we call him..He is the epitome of how corporate execs smack down the middle class..But I have to say I haven't voted in 20 yrs but I will come out to vote AGAINST Obama. My reasons are not that I dislike Obama but I DESPISE his appointments i.e Holder, Napalitano, etc... But Obama has a good chance of re election for the one reason I have told others..I said Obama will not win the Republicans will lose if they put up a weak candidate and sure enough they did.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6189 posts, RR: 25 Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
If most people have jobs and feel good about the economy in October - Obama wins.
If most people are out of work and worried about the economy in October - Romney wins.
Same as the election campaign for any sitting president. That's why Bush 2 and Clinton were re-elected, and Bush 1, Carter and Ford lost their elections.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2417 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 35): Bush was struggling against a GOP-controlled Congress late into his first term. Ideally, many within the GOP would've liked to have replaced Bush with somebody further to the right, but such candidate would've stood little chance within the general election.
That is news to me, what specifically did he really disagree with regarding congress considering they pretty much gave him a rubber stamp. I don't recall the GOP countering him on much outside of the initial TARP vote. Was that just the GOP falling in line with their guy??
Also who at the time was seen to be more right that Bush at the time? Although fiscally he didn't govern like a conservative at all.
One of the things that made GWB a good politician is that he didn't care and got what he wanted done and was able to influence congress. Now IMO his ideas sucked but he got them done.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6189 posts, RR: 25 Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): what specifically did he really disagree with regarding congress
Bush long supported and tried to bring to Congress an immigration plan.
It consisted of a way for illegals in the US to earn legal status and citizenship and a large 'guest worker' program. Which would allow tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people from Mexico specifically to be identified and paired up with 'low wage' jobs in the US. That they could cross the border at will. Bush thought this would provide the workers that his Republican big business owner supporters demanded, yet keep the families still in Mexico where the US wages would provide a higher standard of living than in the US.
The Republican congressional leadership absolutely refused to consider any proposal that granted 'amnesty' to illegals currently in the US. They especially disliked Bush's part of the plan for an identity card with a master database and biometric data which would positively identify all workers in the US - thus making hiring illegals almost impossible.
I've always thought George Bush wasn't smart enough to make a good governor, much less President. Still thing so. Believe my point has been proven beyond any doubt.
However, he did have a few good ideas.
But he was terrible at picking people to carry out his ideas.
I do like that now his mission in life seems to be to help those wounded and maimed in his wars.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 37): If most people have jobs and feel good about the economy in October - Obama wins.
People Not In Labor Force Soar By 522,000, Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1981
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2373 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 40): That is news to me, what specifically did he really disagree with regarding congress considering they pretty much gave him a rubber stamp...Also who at the time was seen to be more right that Bush at the time? ...
One of the things that made GWB a good politician is that he didn't care and got what he wanted done and was able to influence congress. Now IMO his ideas sucked but he got them done.
Toward the conclusion of his first term and the first half of his second, Bush most certainly struggled much more than he should have with his agenda despite a GOP-controlled Congress. And for a Republican, Bush is definitely closer to the center. History's still judging the Clinton Administration; only time will develop a true judgement on Bush.
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2342 times:
I'm more curious as to why people will vote the way they will. If Obama wins, how much of it is it a vote against Romney and the Tea-Party hijacked Republican party. If Romney wins, how much of it is a vote against Obama and his various missteps while in office. I personally don't think Obama's been that bad, but he hasn't been that great either--and just as I didn't understand the basis for the venomous vitriol from the left against Bush during his term in office (other than that he isnt from our party), I don't understand the basis for some of the vitriol against Obama. Looking long-term, Bush will be remembered more for what he did, and Obama will be remembered more for what he didn't do (with a slight asterisk if Obamacare is ruled in favor of by Scotus).
In other words, will people be voting because they love the candidate that they are voting for, or because they hate the other guy so much they want anyone else to win?
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2813 posts, RR: 14 Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 5): I for one hope it will be Obama, Romney doesn't seem like any good.
As compared to what...Obama?...LOL!
...If he does win he can no longer blame Bush for what he "inherited"...it is now his "own mess" he will inherit.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 47): ...If he does win he can no longer blame Bush for what he "inherited"...it is now his "own mess" he will inherit.
The Great Recession is a generational problem - WIllard certainly won't be able to best Obama in improving the lot of the lower and middle classes. Buying his wife a couple of Caddys and a thousand dollar T-Shirt doesn't cut it. Maybe more investments in building infrastructures will change things around, but a $1K T-Shirt?
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6189 posts, RR: 25 Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
Quoting us330 (Reply 44): why people will vote the way they will.
You hit it right - a LOT of people vote against someone, something rather than for anything/ anyone.
There are an increasing number of one issue voters in my opinion who look for something to vote against.
Of course, finding a politician as reasonable, honest, hard working and practical as I am is very hard.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 37): If most people have jobs and feel good about the economy in October - Obama wins.If most people are out of work and worried about the economy in October - Romney wins.Same as the election campaign for any sitting president. That's why Bush 2 and Clinton were re-elected, and Bush 1, Carter and Ford lost their elections.Nothing else really matters.
While I agree the economy will be the tipping point for many voters, I don't agree with your assessment.
Had Perot not ran in 1992, Bush I would've likely been easily re-elected. But Clinton's election most certainly energized the Conservative base and factored heavily in the sweeping, unprescidented Republican Congressional victories of 1994. (Sound familiar?)
And in 2004, the huge turnout of young adults 25 and under, unhappy with the Iraq War (among other issues) and seemingly overwhelmingly in favor of Kerry, never materialized. Although most polling correctly predicted Bush's re-election (by a razon-thin margin), most conceded the difficulty in polling young adults, since most did not have a landline and an increasingly large number (vs. prior years) was still living with their parents. What remains unclear is why this demographic didn't turn out to vote (in the large numbers expected); it could very well be that many preceived Kerry to be a weak candidate.
- - -
I do believe the 2012 election is Obama's to lose. Romney remains notoriously popular in MA (he won the Republican primary with over 70% of the vote) yet trails Obama by 20-points in early polling. Much like Bush II vs. Kerry in 2004, the Obama campaign should be able to protray Romney as an out-of-touch, say-and-do-anything-to-get-elected candidate.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2099 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 51): the Obama campaign should be able to protray Romney as an out-of-touch, say-and-do-anything-to-get-elected candidate.
Overall I believe Romney is a decent man. Takes his religion and marriage vows seriously. And grew up in a successful family environment. I'll give him credit that he pretty well earned his millions by hard work (with some fantastic contacts).
Is the guy out of touch? For those not in the wealthy realms in America I think he is exceptionally out of touch. And, contrary to the yelling from the hard right media, his lovely wife does not understand the difficulties and challenges that middle class (and below) women go through. Working mothers who have to work - especially when their husbands have lost their jobs because of the Great Recession. Out of touch, but decent people.
As for the ability of Mitt too shift gears on a dime, he's just responding to fast position changes because, IMO, he does not have that solid a political position. He bought in Obamacare in MA before Obama was elected President. He understood the need for reform in health care costs. His domestic positions will bend - especially when big money calls. Internationally I think he will probably listen to the people with solid and reasonable understanding of international relations. But he will be more like Bush than Obama - hopefully without starting an unnecessary war.
I think the guy wants to be President just to be President. There is no driving reason besides the job being there. As such he probably would not be that good a President, except for the big contributors.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1467 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
EXTRA ! EXTRA! EXTRA!
READ ALL ABOUT IT !
Not only will Mitt win, he'll do such a fabulous job in his first term, everyone on A.net will vote for him 2nd time around ~
Charley
(told you so)
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
I personally think that Obama doesn't stand a chance.
Everything he does is shooting himself in the foot at this point. I really wish he would have not sought a second term so that we could get a democrat in there that actually knew what he/she was doing.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2051 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 36): I do believe the 2012 election is Obama's to lose. Romney remains notoriously popular in MA (he won the Republican primary with over 70% of the vote) yet trails Obama by 20-points in early polling. Much like Bush II vs. Kerry in 2004, the Obama campaign should be able to protray Romney as an out-of-touch, say-and-do-anything-to-get-elected candidate.
Romney has one demographic in hand which is white men (he does have a stranglehold on that and McCain won it in 2008). He is losing to Obama on the women vote (as much as 20 points in some polls) which his stance with the religious nuts do not help him.
Also his stance on immigration means that he will likely lose Latino votes and blacks are a given.
When Republicans win they usually carry more than just white men and time have changed and the US is very diverse and this spells trouble for him I reckon. However there is a first time for everything.
If he can't close the gap with women (majority of voters right there) he is in trouble and he needs to drop the war on women. If not it is just feeding a win for Obama because women will vote for him just to defend their rights that they did fight for over 40 years ago.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37): Is the guy out of touch? For those not in the wealthy realms in America I think he is exceptionally out of touch. And, contrary to the yelling from the hard right media, his lovely wife does not understand the difficulties and challenges that middle class (and below) women go through. Working mothers who have to work - especially when their husbands have lost their jobs because of the Great Recession. Out of touch, but decent people.
He was successful no doubt but he was also born into wealth as well and had opportunities given to him much easier than people rising from the lower classes of society simply because he didn't have to climb up a whole lot. Simply he is out of touch because he hasn't experienced being poor where as Obama and many others have and worked their way up.
Does he have to apologize for it, absolutely not but he should be humble about it and that will earn him a lot more respect with the electorate.
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 38): Not only will Mitt win, he'll do such a fabulous job in his first term
I have nothing against Mitt. I actually think he would make a good president--he has the managerial skills necessary to get things done, and one of the biggest criticisms of him, that he is an ideological flip-flopper, is actually a positive in my opinion because it reflects a guy who is results oriented. Let's face it, rhetoric can only take you so far--sooner or later people will actually want you to do something (see Obama, for example of a classic case of this). He is independently wealthy so, in theory, at least, he shouldnt be beholden to special interests or lobby groups, and can do what he thinks is right.
That said, my problem, and my major concern about the guy, is the possible influence of the evangelical right, the tea party, and other elements of the far right (ie the strain of anti-intellectualism) that disgust me as a center right person. Hopefully he is only paying lip service to their needs so that he can get elected, and once he gets elected, he can cordon them off. I just don't know if he's going to or if he will. And I'm also so disgusted by these same elements that part of me wants the Republican party to get blown out in the elections just so the party leaders can reform their strategy and their party, because they have managed to paint themselves into a demographic corner by catering to the extremist elements within the party.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
Quoting us330 (Reply 41): He is independently wealthy so, in theory, at least, he shouldnt be beholden to special interests or lobby groups, and can do what he thinks is right.
Of course he does, he may be worth 9 figures but this election is expected to cost at the minimum 10 figures per side. Romney is rich but he worth $250 million and is getting backed by guys who are far richer.
Quoting us330 (Reply 41): Hopefully he is only paying lip service to their needs so that he can get elected, and once he gets elected, he can cordon them off. I just don't know if he's going to or if he will.
I think the right base is far less forgiving than the left base at the present time, if he wins and doesn't kiss their @$$es I could very well see him getting pulled from re-election in 2016.
Quoting us330 (Reply 41): And I'm also so disgusted by these same elements that part of me wants the Republican party to get blown out in the elections just so the party leaders can reform their strategy and their party, because they have managed to paint themselves into a demographic corner by catering to the extremist elements within the party.
This was supposed to happen after getting blown out in 06 and 08 but they just got more extreme. Hopefully you are right and the will reform themselves but more likely than not if they do get blown out and the dems get everything back. The sane members of the party will split it up because their voices are the ones that will work with the democrats to actually get things freaking done at the centre.
Quoting us330 (Reply 41): see Obama, for example of a classic case of this
Obama wanted to and wants to work with the other side but when the opposition's policy is whatever he wants, we disagree nothing gets done.
He could vow to eliminate all taxes all together and the GOP would oppose it, I hope for that sake the GOP loses it all again. Adults who disagree work together and come up with a compromise and people who don't are children. I know the GOP's goal is to get him out of office but it should not be at the expense of the entire country.
jet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1984 times:
Yes I think Obama will win a second term.
The polls have settled down and consistently show a small but sufficiently large large gap in popular vote. The outlook for delegate count by states also looks good for him. The GOP are taking some extreme positions trying to energize the far right and that is hurting them with the middle which will impact the swing states.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1942 times:
Obama didn't exactly win in a landslide against McCain which is arguably a much weaker opponent than Romney. I see a few problems ahead:
- Many people on the right would not have voted for Santorum because of his extremist views; less people on the right will withhold their vote because Romney isn't extreme enough
- Obama got a lot of 'novelties' votes. I doubt the same number of people, wanting a black president, will make it to the polls again for something as unglamorous as a re-election
- Obama is much too centrist for the liberals and if his Mass. policies are any indication of his political ambitions on a national level, Romney is far too little a threat to scare people to the polls
- The Obama administration gets flamed for what they haven't done yet, but get no credit for what they have achieved
- Much less liberally-minded people are registered voters than Jesus-people so that a demographic minority becomes disproportionally represented politically
Obama is likely to win, but only because nobody really cares about Romney. But elections are a joke, and anything but a reflection of the people's will anyway. I don't think you could find more than 10% of Americans that actually agree with the views of a Mr Santorum, socially. Fiscally, well, any first semester student in either macroeconomics or history will have a very hard time taking the Republicans plans seriously; it's a compliment calling them 'plans' really.
If the Republicans paint America's future under Obama as a communist dystopia, maybe Obama should start painting the future of America under a Republican administration as what they'd ideally make it: Europe in the year 1700.
It'd be great if more young people in the US took an interest in politics and voted for what they believe in. The Republicans of today would be outta business by tomorrow.
Confuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3652 posts, RR: 2 Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1938 times:
ual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1492 posts, RR: 5 Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
Quoting something (Reply 44):
It'd be great if more young people in the US took an interest in politics and voted for what they believe in. The Republicans of today would be outta business by tomorrow.
Think again. A LOT of young people I know are going to vote against Obama.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Quoting ual777 (Reply 46): Think again. A LOT of young people I know are going to vote against Obama.
He doesn't need to think again. 65% of the youth vote went to Obama in 2008 -- that's still A LOT of votes against Obama, but it's a very clear majority in favor of.
Consider Texas. 54% of the youth vote went for Obama -- the only age demographic he won -- but only 39% of elgible youths voted (among the lowest turnout in the nation, which totaled 51%). Consider the surge of young, college-educated voters (both very strong Democrat demographics) who've relocated into TX over the past four years. Also consider the surge in Hispanics (which vote 63% for Obama). If a strong showing of young & Hispanic voters show up at the polls, it'll make it an interesting race. But history tells us it's unlikely to happen.
something From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 24 Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1839 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 47): He doesn't need to think again. 65% of the youth vote went to Obama in 2008 -- that's still A LOT of votes against Obama, but it's a very clear majority in favor of.
Consider Texas. 54% of the youth vote went for Obama -- the only age demographic he won -- but only 39% of elgible youths voted (among the lowest turnout in the nation, which totaled 51%).
The last part of what you said is actually what I was getting at. Most of my friends in the US don't vote, nor are they even registered. Some of them simply try to avoid jury duty, others just don't care about politics because it's ''lame''. But ask anybody under 30, be it from Manhattan or rural Texas, if they think homosexuality is a sin, abortions should be illegal, all immigrants should be deported, etc. Ask them about gun laws, the death penalty, wars, torture of prisoners, health care, environmentalism or the school system there.. I for one have yet to meet people who'd agree with the Republican positions on these matters. But then again, you would somehow assume that an objective mind will intuitively grasp the correlation between availability of firearms and gun-related crimes, the lack of a social welfare net and the crime rate, an anachronistic approach to sex ed and teen pregnancies etc.
ual777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1492 posts, RR: 5 Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 47):
He doesn't need to think again. 65% of the youth vote went to Obama in 2008 -- that's still A LOT of votes against Obama, but it's a very clear majority in favor of.
Consider Texas. 54% of the youth vote went for Obama -- the only age demographic he won -- but only 39% of elgible youths voted (among the lowest turnout in the nation, which totaled 51%). Consider the surge of young, college-educated voters (both very strong Democrat demographics) who've relocated into TX over the past four years. Also consider the surge in Hispanics (which vote 63% for Obama). If a strong showing of young & Hispanic voters show up at the polls, it'll make it an interesting race. But history tells us it's unlikely to happen.
Obama had a huge push in 2008, and I think young voter turnout will be much lower this election as things have been business as usual.
Quoting something (Reply 48): Ask them about gun laws, the death penalty, wars, torture of prisoners, health care, environmentalism or the school system there.. I for one have yet to meet people who'd agree with the Republican positions on these matters. But then again, you would somehow assume that an objective mind will intuitively grasp the correlation between availability of firearms and gun-related crimes, the lack of a social welfare net and the crime rate, an anachronistic approach to sex ed and teen pregnancies etc.
I know many people that agree with the death penalty, health care, and many other Republican positions. These are all people under 30 too!
The thing people don't understand (especially when from across the pond), is that many of us don't want your social welfare net, insanely high taxes, and rediculous "enviromental" regulations (see the departure taxes on airfare).
While I take issue with some Republican platforms, Romney is a very moderate candidate and I think will be best suited for the Presidency.
Obama's administration has done/said things that make my stomach churn. Most recently is his talk about trying to forgive student loan debt. Who pays for it? Maybe if these idiots didn't get degrees in art appreciation and instead earned something in engineering, science, business or healthcare, they wouldn't have $100,000 dollars in debt and a piece of paper that says "general studies." As far as I'm concerned, they can go do 4 years in the military to pay it off.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Quoting ual777 (Reply 49): Obama had a huge push in 2008, and I think young voter turnout will be much lower this election as things have been business as usual.
I tend to agree that turnout won't be as high as well. But you were arguing against the impact young voters would have on the Democratic nominee if they turned out in large numbers, an assertion I will continue to disagree with.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 49): I know many people that agree with the death penalty, health care, and many other Republican positions. These are all people under 30 too!
Assuming that young voters completely agree with every viewpoint sold by either the Democrat or Republican ticket (which is obviously not true) they voted for, 36% of voters agreed with the Republican ticket in 2008. That's many (millions of) people, right? But still a very clear minority. Living in the south, I'm not surprised you know many of these voters. But it's a fact that the views of young people are becoming more-and-more liberal. Even in the most right-wing states, a majority of (or close to, depending on the poll) young people support gay marraige. Barely 10 years ago, this was simply not the case.
Quoting ual777 (Reply 49): Obama's administration has done/said things that make my stomach churn. Most recently is his talk about trying to forgive student loan debt. Who pays for it?
You've exemplified the argument that people are unfamilair with the view points of the candidates. Obama did not discussed outright forgiving student loan debt; instead, the discussion was focused on renewing the interest rates that had been cut five years ago on certain student loans. Certain right-wing media had a field day with this, proclaiming Obama would rather forgive student loans than create jobs. But it's a very revelant issue among millions of college graduates, most with jobs, who are paying down their loans.
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
One thing that may factor heavily into whether or not Obama gets re-elected is one of the third party options in this election. The Libertarians have nominated former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and Americans Elect, a non-partisan organization is about to start their online caucuses to whittle the slate of candidates (declared and those drafted by members of the website) down to six candidates for their online convention in June. The candidates of these two groups would be the most likely to swing the election since they will be likely to be the two third party options on the ballot in the most states.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 50): You've exemplified the argument that people are unfamilair with the view points of the candidates. Obama did not discussed outright forgiving student loan debt; instead, the discussion was focused on renewing the interest rates that had been cut five years ago on certain student loans.
Obama went on the road to universities a told the students that the evil GOP was blocking the nice Democrats from locking down the interest rate. That was a lie - there was bipartisan support for the Interest rate renewal, and Boehner and others called him on it. Of course that won't get the same amount of press that Obama's accusation did.
And now Obama has threatened to veto the bill keeping interest rates low, because the GOP took the money from the Healthcare slush fund. Democrats wanted to get the $6 billion by raiding payroll taxes (which are already severely underfunded), and go out for their Latte's.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 34): The Great Recession is a generational problem - WIllard certainly won't be able to best Obama in improving the lot of the lower and middle classes. Buying his wife a couple of Caddys and a thousand dollar T-Shirt doesn't cut it. Maybe more investments in building infrastructures will change things around, but a $1K T-Shirt?
Ann Romney wore the best clothes she could when she was scheduled to go on a national TV interview. Michelle Obama has much more expensive taste - wearing multi-thousand dollar clothing while on vacation! Your hypocrisy is showing, Ken.
Quoting us330 (Reply 31): If Obama wins, how much of it is it a vote against Romney and the Tea-Party hijacked Republican party.
Please explain how the GOP has been " Tea-Party hijacked" when the nominee after the primary was the one least liked by the Tea Party. Hmm?
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 26): If most people have jobs and feel good about the economy in October - Obama wins.
If most people are out of work and worried about the economy in October - Romney wins.
You also have to take into account the effect of propaganda in the media. Everyone hears how Unemployment peaked at 10-ish percent, and we are now at 8% or so. Things are improving, right? Wrong! In March 2010 (when unemployment was just about at its worst), 58.5% of all working age Americans had a job. In March 2012, 58.5% of all working age Americans had a job. So if the employment rate is exactly the same as it was two years ago, then how can Obama claim that things have gotten any better since then?
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
People are dropping out of the unemployment rate calculation by the millions.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): Obama went on the road to universities a told the students that the evil GOP was blocking the nice Democrats from locking down the interest rate. That was a lie - there was bipartisan support for the Interest rate renewal, and Boehner and others called him on it. Of course that won't get the same amount of press that Obama's accusation did.
And now Obama has threatened to veto the bill keeping interest rates low, because the GOP took the money from the Healthcare slush fund. Democrats wanted to get the $6 billion by raiding payroll taxes (which are already severely underfunded), and go out for their Latte's.
The Democrats proposed funding the renewal via closing a loophole on payroll taxes, not by raiding payroll taxes. The GOP's reluctant to renew the measure and proposed a funding source it knew would have little chance of passing the Senate and is primarly designed to give the finger to the Democrats. The GOP is hoping to feed off the ignorance of the public by being able to proclaim '...we passed the measure but the Democrats veto'd it.'
It's nothing more than an ugly political power play by both sides. The Democrats, who passed the original measure in 2007, made certain its renewal would come up during an election year. And the break on interest only applies to subsidized loans, which are heavily capped. Few graduates, even those carrying over $80,000, likely have more than several thousands of dollars in these loans.
Most college students have the option of living with their parents and attending community college for two years (sometimes more) & then transferring to a local four-year school to complete their degree for a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 (not including any tax credits, tax breaks, scholarships or grants). IMO, if somebody chooses to go off to a four-year college and accumulates $80,000 to $150,000 in debt, they should be stuck with the bill.
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
Quoting ual777 (Reply 49): Maybe if these idiots didn't get degrees in art appreciation and instead earned something in engineering, science, business or healthcare, they wouldn't have $100,000 dollars in debt and a piece of paper that says "general studies."
Student loans need to be reformed. They are the only debt not dischargeable by bankruptcy, which needs to change since it gives lenders no incentive not to offer student loans. But, at the same time, lending practices need to be changed to reflect the ability of the student to pay back. For example, different interest rates for different majors and the qualifications of the student in question. Majors at schools with low job placement ratings would get higher interest rates to reflect the greater risk that the lender is taking on. For other types of schools, like law schools for example, the school should be forced to be the one providing the loan to begin with to better align the interests of the school with the interest of the student--when the studetn gets a job, the student will get paid, and when the student gets paid, that's when the school will get its money back.
As much of the problem is poor decisions by students, there are also plenty of institutions out there that view students as igignorant consumers that they can take advantage of.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): Please explain how the GOP has been " Tea-Party hijacked" when the nominee after the primary was the one least liked by the Tea Party. Hmm?
The no new tax pledge by Norquist. The fact that Romney, previously a moderate, is now condemning some of the same policies that he implemented in Massachusetts just to appeal to that base so he can get elected.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): Student loans need to be reformed. They are the only debt not dischargeable by bankruptcy, which needs to change since it gives lenders no incentive not to offer student loans.
But unlike bankruptcy affecting cars, houses, businesses etc, where your creditors have the option of taking your stuff, you can't take back an education.
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): Majors at schools with low job placement ratings would get higher interest rates to reflect the greater risk that the lender is taking on.
I've been arguing the same type of thing for ages, but can you imagine the kickback from certain powerful minority lobbies? When we start giving loans with a 3% rate for engineering and chemistry degrees, and 20% for degrees in LGBT Studies, or African American Studies, there will be cries of outrage which the Democrats will find impossible to ignore.
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): The no new tax pledge by Norquist. The fact that Romney, previously a moderate, is now condemning some of the same policies that he implemented in Massachusetts just to appeal to that base so he can get elected.
The tax pledge is a voting block. You deal with it. And what is allowable and desirable at a state or local level is completely different from what is allowable and desirable at a federal level. There are no constitutional issues if Massachusetts decided to implement 100% single-payer healthcare, for instance. Conservatives recognize the difference (well, many do - not all). If MA wants to do it, and can fund it with their taxes, fine, and if some MA residents don't like it, they can move. People have the choice of voting with their feet. But when the same policy is implemented at a federal level, there is no choice - most people can't just pack up and move to another country.
This is exactly the logic the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and why the 10th Amendment was written. States have a free hand, the federal government does not.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 55): This is exactly the logic the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and why the 10th Amendment was written. States have a free hand, the federal government does not.
Many scholars will argue that the Founding Fathers supported a strong, central government and only added the BOR because their constituents (weary of the monarchies they fled from) opposed it.
Nonetheless, when this country was founded, health care wasn't a hot issue. There's no doubt that in 2012, the cost of health care limits the access to tens of millions (many w/insurance). To too many within this country, health care isn't about life & death but rather dollars & cents. While I may not agree with Obama's health care plan, it's very clear that health care reform is necessary in this country.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 56): Nonetheless, when this country was founded, health care wasn't a hot issue.
Huh? Have you read Benjamin Franklin? People got sick, needed doctors, they had hospitals, they had poor people who couldn't afford it. This is not a new issue. Franklin was instrumental in establishing the first charitable hospitals - he knew the problems of health care intimately, and was very much opposed to the federal government getting involved.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 56): Many scholars will argue that the Founding Fathers supported a strong, central government and only added the BOR because their constituents (weary of the monarchies they fled from) opposed it.
Those "scholars" have their heads planted firmly up their asses due to their ideological slant. There were those who wanted a stronger federal government, led by Alexander Hamilton. But his ideas did not make it into the Constitution nearly to the level of Jefferson, who wanted to protect the people from the big financial interests who he knew would control a strong central government.
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1569 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 55): and 20% for degrees in LGBT Studies, or African American Studies, there will be cries of outrage which the Democrats will find impossible to ignore.
No, it would just leave lower rates for students who go to higher tier institutions. Whereas hard sciences and math are same across the board, the quality of liberal arts programs is dependent upon the quality of the institution. A person graduating with a degree in Af-Am studies from an Ivy has much better job prospects than a person graduating in Af-Am studies from a community college. This might also serve a double role of having an effect on the glut of Phd students and helping thin out the already notorious overcrowded academic market.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): Huh? Have you read Benjamin Franklin? People got sick, needed doctors, they had hospitals, they had poor people who couldn't afford it. This is not a new issue.
The cost of health care is a hot issue with many middle- and lower-class citizens today. While health care has always been an issue, it's previously never been enough of an issue to sway votes, elections and reform (because other things worried people more).
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): Those "scholars" have their heads planted firmly up their asses due to their ideological slant. There
Kinda like how some will insist our Founding Fathers intended for the country to be Christian, even though the Founding Fathers were Christian and had oodles of opportunity to make Christianity our religion but opted for freedom of religion instead?
You or I could write something today, be very explicit about it and people would continue to argue about the merits of what we really meant, swayed by their ideology.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): You also have to take into account the effect of propaganda in the media. Everyone hears how Unemployment peaked at 10-ish percent, and we are now at 8% or so. Things are improving, right? Wrong! In March 2010 (when unemployment was just about at its worst), 58.5% of all working age Americans had a job. In March 2012, 58.5% of all working age Americans had a job. So if the employment rate is exactly the same as it was two years ago, then how can Obama claim that things have gotten any better since then?
So you are saying that unemployment is "the same" but not "better?" In that case he is doing better that GWB
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 60): Interesting table 2004 started with 62.3, and early 2009 was around 59.2.
And historically, following a recession the economy bounces right back, close to the proportion of the initial recession.
Notice there are a few historical exceptions - the mid thirties, late 70s and Now. In each example, business generally recovered (see the stock market performance), but it did not translate into job growth and a more generalized recovery. Why is that? Can you postulate a few answers?
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
Not really. This was a story that hit a lot of media.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 52): Please explain how the GOP has been " Tea-Party hijacked" when the nominee after the primary was the one least liked by the Tea Party. Hmm?
The Tea Party will be as loud in this election as they were in the last. It will bend to their demands simply because he wants to be elected and isn't really concerned about the damage they will do to most Americans -- he just wants to be President.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 53): Most college students have the option of living with their parents and attending community college for two years (sometimes more) & then transferring to a local four-year school to complete their degree for a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 (not including any tax credits, tax breaks, scholarships or grants). IMO, if somebody chooses to go off to a four-year college and accumulates $80,000 to $150,000 in debt, they should be stuck with the bill.
I happen to be a strong supporter of community colleges. In Tulsa a high school graduate with reasonable grades can have two years tuition free. That is enough to get on career paths (like nursing, therapy assistants, etc) or a fantastic head start on a full university degree.
At the same time, not everyone has the access to "home town community colleges" and need to go to a 4 year university.
Fortunately most states have multiple universities allowing students to go reasonably close to home. The important factor at state schools is to keep costs for students at an absolute minimum. If a student leaves their state university with $80K in debt then the state is not serving the citizens at an appropriate level,
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): Student loans need to be reformed. They are the only debt not dischargeable by bankruptcy, which needs to change since it gives lenders no incentive not to offer student loans
If banks can get money from the government at close to zero interest then we can afford to shift student loans tot he same levels. If banks don't want to give up those loans then we need to tax their earnings on student long at a motivational
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): For example, different interest rates for different majors and the qualifications of the student in question.
That doesn't really work. We need to generate motivation for young people to maximize their education, be it in engineering or teaching or any of the vocation.
We don't need states working on taking more money from students. We need good schools that teach a wide range of subjects. While I believe in strong programs of maths & sciences, engineering, business, etc. I also believe that we need to be training good students to be teachers.
Quoting us330 (Reply 54): As much of the problem is poor decisions by students, there are also plenty of institutions out there that view students as igignorant consumers that they can take advantage of.
There has long been a public motivation to maximize the education a person can get.
The real start of the expectations for a higher education was with the WW II vets who returned to civilian life and went to university on the GI Bill. (The expansion of university level facilities for these GIs also left the nation with the infrastructure to deliver more education to more Americans.) Some people want to forget that the huge shift in higher education delivered some major benefits to the country.
Where we need to watch carefully is in the for profit educators. They pull in some big dollars (especially GI Bill dollars)
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 55): There are no constitutional issues if Massachusetts decided to implement 100% single-payer healthcare, for instance.
There is no constitutional issue if we have a national health policy. Putting everyone on a Medicare type program and jerking nanny care expenses out of corporate P&Ls is not unconstitutional.
The concept of health care reform is also not against the Constitution. And it was a clear platform topic for Obama in 08.
The only question is IF we maintain a payment system that includes the private insurance companies (which the mandate does) or if we eliminate the costs of those insurance companies in a public payment system.
Anyone on Medicare & Supplemental coverage fully understands that there is a valid & attractive option besides the mandate.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): Franklin was instrumental in establishing the first charitable hospitals - he knew the problems of health care intimately, and was very much opposed to the federal government getting involved.
Franklin, however, would have had the understanding of just how far medicine would develop, how the pharma industry would develop, or how those charitable hospitals would shift away from their core ideals. Today the not-for-profit hospitals will send patients accounts to collection agencies as fast as for-profit hospitals.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): There were those who wanted a stronger federal government, led by Alexander Hamilton. But his ideas did not make it into the Constitution nearly to the level of Jefferson, who wanted to protect the people from the big financial interests who he knew would control a strong central government.
In those days the primary loyalty was to the states, not the United States. Sometimes we are able to focus our loyalty to our Nation. WW II was such a driver of national patriotism. These days state loyalty/patriotism is basically focused on the state university football teams. Maybe basketball.
The state level of government is a less honorable or effective level than a National level. Equal protection under the law is a concept that fairs poorly under state power.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 59): The cost of health care is a hot issue with many middle- and lower-class citizens today.
It should also be a really hot issue for employers. The explosive costs of employer provided nanny care has impacted company potential for growth within the country. Anyone who has worked in a country where companies (rage and small) haven't been burdened by "Health Insurance Expense" on their P&Ls will understand that core level health care on a Medicare type program is as much a conservative issue as it is a moderate or liberal issue.
Get employer nanny care off of company P&Ls and you will see growth in this country.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62): At the same time, not everyone has the access to "home town community colleges" and need to go to a 4 year university.
Fortunately most states have multiple universities allowing students to go reasonably close to home. The important factor at state schools is to keep costs for students at an absolute minimum. If a student leaves their state university with $80K in debt then the state is not serving the citizens at an appropriate level,
A very small population does not have easy access to a community college or commuting college/university near their parents. For the few people who are accepted into a prestigious school, the investment will pay off. But the overwhelming majority of students attending Generic Boarding College need to recognize the amount of the debt they're accumulating vs. the expected salary & living expense they'll ultimately incur. If going off to school to have a good time is important to you, than I have no sympathy for you when it comes to pay the bill.
But the most staggering issue is that many students who take out loans ultimately drop out of school. I'd be curious to know how much of the outstanding student debt is owed by students who will likely never finish their degree.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1450 times:
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62): There has long been a public motivation to maximize the education a person can get.
The government has driven the cost of education through the roof because of all the tax dollars they have floating around earmarked for education. The government has it set up so you can take out mortgage length student loans, so the universities price education so high that you need 20 years to pay it off. The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Like the mortgage bubble the cheap money and the everyone needs a college push is driving up the costs. Once again blame big government for saddling the middle and lower class kids with dept and higher tuition costs.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1392 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 65): Once again blame big government for saddling the middle and lower class kids with dept and higher tuition costs.
The primary driving factor behind soaring tuition is the significant cuts from state appropriations. Without government subsidies, a high-quality education would be beyond the reach of many students. And while privatizing student loans sounds great, many students would be unable to access the private market.
Students can control their debt levels by continuing to live at home, working part-time and watching their spending (a textbook their bookstore sells new for $300 probably has an older edition available online for $10, with little differentiation from the new book).
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 60): So you are saying that unemployment is "the same" but not "better?" In that case he is doing better that GWB
This start of this century will be seen as one of shrinking jobs in the US. Obama obviously lost as many jobs in the country as Bush did, but there lack of confidence in America from the Bush Years will last far longer than a Presidential Term or two.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 63): For the few people who are accepted into a prestigious school, the investment will pay off.
Generally.
Excellent educations CAN be delivered by state universities, be it in engineering or teaching or business (accounting & finance). When you are talking about the science/engineering areas there is no reason why state schools cannot compete with "the elites".
But our investments in public education have been reduced these days. The old penny wise and pound foolish approach to government spending by those wanting smaller government. THis at a time when even Exxon is advertising about our falling in international standards.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 63): But the overwhelming majority of students attending Generic Boarding College need to recognize the amount of the debt they're accumulating vs. the expected salary & living expense they'll ultimately incur.
Public "generic" colleges should be funded by the public to an extent that graduates will be able to pay out a little debt over a few years and get on with reasonable normal life. Generational debt is not what states should be delivering.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 65): The government has driven the cost of education through the roof because of all the tax dollars they have floating around earmarked for education.
Unfortunately there have ben (and will continue to be) cuts to education in this country. One of the reason why we keep sliding down the list of countries with high standards of education.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 65): The government has it set up so you can take out mortgage length student loans, so the universities price education so high that you need 20 years to pay it off.
And that is the main reason why we need to look at how federal funding is going to universities. We have some very strong motivations in the areas of research grants to universities and should direct that funding to universities that provide affordable education. That is the fast way to get some serious attention at various schools, including the elites.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 65): The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition.
That is a sad truth, especially when you are looking at the for profit "universities".
I believe, however, that we gain from maximizing the education delivered by the public. I'm talking about both academic education and vocational education. If someone wants to be a carpenter or an electrician then let's get them through the apprenticeship levels so they can start working and earning incomes that don't get wiped out for bank profits.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 63): A very small population does not have easy access to a community college or commuting college/university near their parents.
There are a lot of people in rural areas (or very small towns that support the farmers/ranchers) without the same access. That is one major reason for state university systems that address the needs of these communities.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1467 posts, RR: 2 Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
Some of these replies are so long it would take an hour to read them ! Having just said that, I'll risk doing one that I hope I can keep "reasonable"; True story BTW..................
Friday I stopped at my barber shop, as I had some time to kill; (the guy who owns the place always has a lot of interesting reading matter laying about) I happened to be leafing through a copy of "Legion" which the American Legion sends to it's members.
For anyone outside of the U.S., the American Legion is the leading veterans organization in the U.S. and probably the oldest. Anyway, like a lot of magazines, they have a "letters to the editor" section, (which they call "Vet Voice". As I started reading it, I noticed that many of the letters were comments referring to articles in past issues; one in particular caught my eye; As it was not very long, I read it and reread it several times; In it, the gentleman writing it was referring to a fellow who had written an article about "Congress helping veterans get jobs"; it became obvious that this man was a government employee himself.
He started out by saying, and I quote; "Tom Philpot did a nice job on the article about Congress helping veterans get jobs". (Jan. issue) "However, he should research the 100,000-plus administratively determined employees "brought in" under the current administration." He goes on to say, "Most new administrations "bring in" around 10,000." He then notes......"Admin-determined employees normally earn between $150,000 and $200,000 per year, which is much more than the average civil servant. Most are not really qualified, and worst of all, they are hired without competition." And here's the kicker............he finishes by saying........"My friends at the Department of Education and Federal Student Aid tell me that not one of these Admin-determined employees is a veteran."
Not really any surprise there, as everyone is aware of the "current POTUS" feelings, relative to service members and veterans. But here's a "civil servant", (whose name I won't mention, but he lives in a suburb right outside of D.C.), telling us that "new administrations normally "bring in" (read: hand out high paying, do-nothing jobs), to everyone who helps the new "POTUS" get HIS new "cushy" job. But here-to-fore, the numbers have been like 10,000, and now "you know who" hands out 100,000 ! (and averaging from 150K to 200K) One would assume that there has been a huge influx of "out-of-towners" with Chicago accents in the metro area surrounding Washington, D.C. the past few years !
I'm presently doing a bit of research on all of this, and will post more as it becomes available.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 66): And while privatizing student loans sounds great, many students would be unable to access the private market.
So? Not my problem.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 67): Unfortunately there have ben (and will continue to be) cuts to education in this country
The Feds should not be in this business. Leave the money and the control in the states.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 67): One of the reason why we keep sliding down the list of countries with high standards of education.
That would be right behind the NEA. The unions are the number one reason. We already spend plenty of money. It is what we are getting for that money that we need to fix.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
But he was terrible at picking people to carry out his ideas.
I do like that now his mission in life seems to be to help those wounded and maimed in his wars.
My thoughts exactly. A few good ideas with very poor execution. I think we forget how much money W gave to Africa during his term -- supposedly the most of any recent present.
Quoting stratosphere (Reply 25): My reasons are not that I dislike Obama but I DESPISE his appointments i.e Holder, Napalitano, etc... But Obama has a good chance of re election for the one reason I have told others..I said Obama will not win the Republicans will lose if they put up a weak candidate and sure enough they did.
My problem with Obama is while he's more of a centrist in office, he agenda going into the presidency was clearly very far left (think back to Joe the Plumber -- "spread his money around".) A lot of his initial beliefs I did not agree with, and many of his decisions made in office I don't agree with as well as he seems to go back and fourth from conservative to liberal (eg: keeping the Bush tax cuts, massive deficit spending, Obamacare etc.) And when I think back to where we were 4 years ago under W: high gas prices, lack of jobs, on going issues in the Middle East (this time Iran), I don't see why someone like Obama should get re-elected. I don't think he deserves to.
Quoting us330 (Reply 41): That said, my problem, and my major concern about the guy, is the possible influence of the evangelical right, the tea party, and other elements of the far right (ie the strain of anti-intellectualism) that disgust me as a center right person.
Check. This is where Santorum did well.
Quoting something (Reply 44): The Obama administration gets flamed for what they haven't done yet, but get no credit for what they have achieved
I think they get too much credit: especially for Bin Laden and Obamacare.
Student loans are the next bubble to burst at least on a large economic scale. I even admit, I went to a very expensive college and have some loans to pay off. It is my responsibility to pay them back. Thankfully, I had just inherited some money and will be able to pay them all back in the short term. However, since I'm being financially responsible with this, and in a perfect world student debt gets eliminated, what would someone who pays all his or her loans back from the government get in return? I got out of college, struggled for a little, got a better paying job (not amazing, but OK), and lived back at home for a while to save up. So the guy with the philosophy degree with no job gets $90,000 of debt eliminated, and I pay back my loans and get squat? I don't think this is right. Everyone needs to take responsibility. Had I known what "debt" meant back in high school when my dad was signing off student loans because "it was the thing to do" I maybe would have evaluated by college decision a little more heavily. Then again, for an expensive college a decent amount of financial aid was given out.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
So the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor right? It's a shame how many people who relied on FinAid to make something of themselves feel others should not have a similar opportunity.
vin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Quoting ual777 (Reply 49): The thing people don't understand (especially when from across the pond), is that many of us don't want your social welfare net, insanely high taxes, and rediculous "enviromental" regulations (see the departure taxes on airfare).
While I take issue with some Republican platforms, Romney is a very moderate candidate and I think will be best suited for the Presidency.
Obama's administration has done/said things that make my stomach churn. Most recently is his talk about trying to forgive student loan debt. Who pays for it? Maybe if these idiots didn't get degrees in art appreciation and instead earned something in engineering, science, business or healthcare, they wouldn't have $100,000 dollars in debt and a piece of paper that says "general studies." As far as I'm concerned, they can go do 4 years in the military to pay it off.
A couple of things I want to point out here. This will be the first election that I will have the chance to vote for president. And I will be voting Romney. Why? Because, as UAL777 so aptly points out, I don't want insanely high taxes or ridiculous "enviromental" regulations. I don't mind a welfare safety net, but that should be for families in true poverty (measured by consumption levels) not the middle class.
The whole student loans thing is pretty ridiculous as well; why am I paying $100,000 (through taxes- and before you ask I will probably be paying taxes for the first time this year) for somebody to come out with a degree in art history? The simple way to measure this is that the average art history grad probably contributes $4-6k per annum in taxes (annual income 20-30k, so we're not being paid back for the cost of that loan for 15-25 years. That's not "investment" in our future at all.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1268 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 71): So the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor right? It's a shame how many people who relied on FinAid to make something of themselves feel others should not have a similar opportunity
I nor my wife have ever relied on FinAid. We also where not rich but had parents who worked hard and paid our ways through private schools. And now we are doing the same for our kids by sending them to private schools and funding their college now so they will not need loans. Why should I feel bad or penalized for my family for working hard taking care of it's own. We already pay for others with taxes for a system that we have not and will not use and also give donations to our school that helps families who could not otherwise afford it . So the last thing I need is the Federal Government taking more of my tax money and giving it away to buy votes. Not everyone is meant or needs to go to college.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 68): everyone is aware of the "current POTUS" feelings, relative to service members and veterans.
Compared to Bush & Cheney he has done a pretty good job.
You tend to forget the back door draft where Bush held on to Americans in uniform long past their EOAS date. These were people who signed up voluntarily to serve x number of years on active duty. Rather that use the draft (which would have demonstrated just how bad a job Bush/Cheney/Rummy did on Iraq and their WMDs, Bush simply refused to release those who have served. Forced retention to avoid a draft, then massive over deployments. Pretty abusive.
These days we have a President who has pulled almost all troops out of Iraq (while some on the far right are telling to stay - must be the oil) and just recently signed the agreement for the pull out in Afghanistan.
Not hard to see who has taken better care of the troops.
BTW, it is also helpful to remember that Bush was in favor of requiring 12 YEARS of service before qualifying for the GI Bill. W needed to talk to his Dad about that idiotic idea. The GI Bill was a nation builder in the late 40s and 50s.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 69): Leave the money and the control in the states.
Sounds cute, but then we have states cutting funds for education under the belief that we need a smaller government at all levels.
Those cuts are IMO one of the primary reasons why the US is falling in international ratings. In an Exxon ad the US is at 17th Place. Only 16 countries outperforming the US in the area of educational standards. Makes you really confident about future generations.
I believe it is time to add "equal education under the law" to the concept of "equal protection under the law".
Quoting windy95 (Reply 69): That would be right behind the NEA. The unions are the number one reason.
Sure they are.
We've cut funds for education and, at the same time, have made it far more expensive to become a teacher. If some had their way teachers would be working at minimum wage.
It's really queer that part of this thread hit on repaying student loans.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): Sounds cute, but then we have states cutting funds for education under the belief that we need a smaller government at all levels.
Those cuts are IMO one of the primary reasons why the US is falling in international ratings. In an Exxon ad the US is at 17th Place. Only 16 countries outperforming the US in the area of educational standards. Makes you really confident about future generations.
Traditionally, education up through high school is locally funded, and apart from the pause due to the recession, spending has been growing consistently for decades - indeed far above inflation levels. No spending cuts here.
States help the local school districts sometimes, but look at the amounts - it's peanuts compared to the local school districts.
Here is the Federal spending levels.
And the grand total, Federal, State and Local spending:
Nope. No spending cuts here. Over 5-6% per year increase from 2000 onwards - way higher than inflation.
Let's look at college/University:
Local Spending:
State Spending:
And Federal Spending:
And total, all government funding:
Obviously the recent recession took a toll, but government spending on education has been skyrocketing across the board for a long time, and is expected to continue to do so. American educational standards have been falling for ages. I found out about it when I moved to the US when I was 13 years old in the '70s, coming from European schools. When my dad found out that the public school I was in was trying to teach me math, history and science that I had already learned 2-3 years before, he took me out and I went to private school. US public schools have sucked for years, and it is NOT because of a lack of money, as the charts above show.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): Sounds cute, but then we have states cutting funds for education under the belief that we need a smaller government at all levels.
Which is their right.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): Those cuts are IMO one of the primary reasons why the US is falling in international ratings
Sorry but we need to blame the NEA and the parents or lack of parents.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): Only 16 countries outperforming the US in the area of educational standards. Makes you really confident about future generations.
What was spent per child with the other countries on this list?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): I believe it is time to add "equal education under the law" to the concept of "equal protection under the law
You believe in equal protection or equal education under the law but not when it comes to taxes. Where is my equal protection when it comes to being taxed for a school system I do not and will not use and where is the equal protection for those who want to live without the fed telling me where i will go to school and how I will get my health care. For liberals equal protection is a one way street.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1200 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 73): I nor my wife have ever relied on FinAid. We also where not rich but had parents who worked hard and paid our ways through private schools. And now we are doing the same for our kids by sending them to private schools and funding their college now so they will not need loans ... Not everyone is meant or needs to go to college.
I wasn't directly implying you, but many persons who've made something of themselves (but otherwise would not have had the opportunity) via FinAid now support the termination of such programs.
The cost of attending a public, subsidized boarding school is over $20,000/year in most states. Saving those large sums of money is beyond reach for most families, especially those with multiple children. While I applaud you for paying for your children's education, your adult child's education should not be your responsibility or obligation nor hinder the quality of your life.
And I agree 100% that not everybody is meant to go to college. In fact, we could increase the quality of education while better controlling costs should we weed out those who really don't belong. Too bad our society tags those who didn't go to school as "unskilled labor" and feels $7.20/hour is sufficient for their labor.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1198 times:
In the past decade, states have cut billions of dollars in higher-education spending (direct subsidies). A simple Google search will confirm this.
I would assume that your graphs include FinAid (of which only a small portion is a direct subsidy, since most will ultimately be paid back) to skew your point.
geezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1467 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1165 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 74): Quoting geezer (Reply 68):
everyone is aware of the "current POTUS" feelings, relative to service members and veterans.
Compared to Bush & Cheney he has done a pretty good job.
Well Ken, apparently "the troops" don't agree with you ! I was watching a TV show Sunday evening; they showed a video, taken in Afghanistan, of George Bush coming into the place where all of the troops were waiting for his visit; when he walked in the door, (no music, just the announcement, "The Commander-In-Chief"; the place went wild ! Everyone was smiling, everyone was excited, they were ALL very happy to see the POTUS;
Then........they showed a video of the exact same thing, but this time Obummer coming in, (on his recent trip to Afghanistan) ; the ONLY sound was a dinky recording of "hail to the chief", whereupon Obummer strolls in, (big frown on his face), but not quite as bad as the frown on all the troops faces; when the "cheesey" music stopped, it was "dead silence" ! Never before have I ever seen such a total lack of sound convey so much meaning ! ( I'm sure Obummer was not in a very good mood on the flight back to the U.S.
It's pretty easy to see why so many absentee ballots from service members overseas were conveniently "lost" on the way back to the U.S. after the last election.
In almost every post you keep reminding us that George Bush didn't do this, didn't do that.......of course he didn't; (in your opinion that is) Trouble is, just because it's your opinion doesn't "make it true"! Hey, I'm perfectly aware that there are millions of people beside you that think Barry has done a FANTASTIC job as POTUS; His problem is though, there are even MORE millions who realize he's destroying this country, so they want a REAL CHANGE this time.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
Quoting geezer (Reply 79): It's pretty easy to see why so many absentee ballots from service members overseas were conveniently "lost" on the way back to the U.S. after the last election.
I don't know why you seem to think the opinions of our servicemen reflect the opinions of the nation as a whole. The military historically supports the GOP. I have some very liberal friends who voted GOP solely because their compensation continued to soar under GOP leadership. "Lost" ballot conspiracy or not, Obama took the 2008 election by nearly 10M votes -- even if a vote was given to McCain for every active serviceman, it wouldn't have made a dent.
Quoting geezer (Reply 79): Trouble is, just because it's your opinion doesn't "make it true"! Hey, I'm perfectly aware that there are millions of people beside you that think Barry has done a FANTASTIC job as POTUS; His problem is though, there are even MORE millions who realize he's destroying this country, so they want a REAL CHANGE this time.
Nor do your opinions of Obama "make it true." Every single credible poll has Obama's approval rating at about 50%. To say 'millions more disapprove of Obama than approve' isn't true, since the margin of error would make such statement indeterminable.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1106 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62): If banks can get money from the government at close to zero interest then we can afford to shift student loans tot he same levels. If banks don't want to give up those loans then we need to tax their earnings on student long at a motivational
Why is the government giving money to the banks to loan to students and not doing it directly like other countries??
That is inefficient adding a middleman and corporate welfare because its free money to banks which they profit from and not the general population. Government's job is to improve the welfare of its citizens and that should trump turning a profit. Both should be aimed for though.
Banks can loan to students all they want but use your own capital for it and for anyone who takes private student loans deal with the consequences of the contract you did sign.
Quoting geezer (Reply 79): It's pretty easy to see why so many absentee ballots from service members overseas were conveniently "lost" on the way back to the U.S. after the last election.
Do you really think all veterans are Republicans considering that the GOP is the one more than the dems that are trying to screw with the VA. Also Obama won in 2008 by 8 million votes!
I didn't know they were that many veterans alive (assuming they are all Republicans) and I assume they all live in Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
I meant to respond to this earlier:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 75): American educational standards have been falling for ages. I found out about it when I moved to the US when I was 13 years old in the '70s, coming from European schools. When my dad found out that the public school I was in was trying to teach me math, history and science that I had already learned 2-3 years before, he took me out and I went to private school. US public schools have sucked for years, and it is NOT because of a lack of money, as the charts above show.
Then the US educational system must have come a long way since the 1970s! Today, most US secondary schools offer a full, comprehensive core curriculum; in fact, the number of IB classes continues to soar. Exceptions generally apply to small schools as well as schools existing in impoverished areas, but many states are requiring "schools of choice laws" and/or for the local district to pay for the student to duel-enroll in a local college. I studied for a year in Europe, and my high school offered classes far beyond the school I exchanged into. Curriculum offerings is not a problem at most US schools.
As you know, in many European countries, students -- who don't think think they're college-bound -- have the option of successfully completing their studies at age 15-16 and opting out of their remaining secondary years. In the US, if students don't finish high school, society views them negatively (even if they acquire a GED) and many low-wage employers won't even consider hiring them.
The problem with US schools is the low-standards that enable students to graduate even though they've never taken an algebra course, can't orchestrate a simple essay/lack the ability to verbally communicate, whose sole science experience was sex education, etc. Instead, students are allowed to graduate by taking classes such as weight training, art, music, etc. (all excellent classes, but lacking fundamental skills).
The US could reform its education by setting diploma standards, enforcing standardized tests and allowing students to "successful" opt out after their second year of high school (provided they met certain standards). But there's too much opposition to this, throughout the political spectrum.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 82): The US could reform its education by setting diploma standards, enforcing standardized tests and allowing students to "successful" opt out after their second year of high school (provided they met certain standards). But there's too much opposition to this, throughout the political spectrum.
On that we agree. There should be an apprenticeship path where if school "just ain't your thing", you can go to work for a builder or plumber or appliance installer or whatever and learn the trade. Your employer might only pay you $2-3 per hour (you'd still be living with your parents), but after a couple of years you will actually have a skill.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1054 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): On that we agree. There should be an apprenticeship path where if school "just ain't your thing", you can go to work for a builder or plumber or appliance installer or whatever and learn the trade. Your employer might only pay you $2-3 per hour (you'd still be living with your parents), but after a couple of years you will actually have a skill.
The unemployment for college grads has held steady to about 4.5% for years. Does that not mean these "skilled" worked make up the greater amount of the unemployed labor?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 84): The unemployment for college grads has held steady to about 4.5% for years. Does that not mean these "skilled" worked make up the greater amount of the unemployed labor?
By "skilled" do you mean college grads? Here, if you drop out of high school - or even complete high school and if you don't go on to college you are unskilled. There is no apprenticeship program to speak of here.
This is a little old. If you double all the unemployment numbers across the board you'd probably have the real unemployment rate.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 987 times:
No i dont, By "skilled" i meant what you are trying to capture here.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83):
On that we agree. There should be an apprenticeship path where if school "just ain't your thing", you can go to work for a builder or plumber or appliance installer or whatever and learn the trade
My point is that historically, as well as currently if you are less likely o be unemployed if you have a college degree (be it philosophy or engineering) than if you are a plumber or a carpenter,
You might be underemployed, but hey at least you are doing something!
A woman i manage has a "arts" degree - i kid you not, because of what she does earns more than some of my engineers. Would we have hired her if she only had a HS diploma? Nope.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 969 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 86): My point is that historically, as well as currently if you are less likely o be unemployed if you have a college degree (be it philosophy or engineering) than if you are a plumber or a carpenter,
Nobody disagrees with you. However, there's a significant population that lacks the desire or capacity to go off to college and a significant number of jobs that require no college education but some skill level. And because educational standards are so lax, many employers aren't confident high school graduates possess basic skills and thus require evidence of some college for employment that wouldn't otherwise require it.
We spend more than $10,000 per student per school year. Consider the cost savings we'd endure if we allowed (like most of Europe) students to successfully complete high school after their sophomore year, reserving the final two years for college-bound students. We could offer government-paid job training programs to those who opted out; for example, contractor positions and other apprentice careers, automobile servicing & repair, general robotics, salesmanship, medical assistant, cosmetology, etc. Many of these careers remain in-demand and students often prepare for them by entering expensive, for-profit training schools while receiving government aid -- often in the form of grants. If students weren't ready for such training, they could be retain the right to do so in the future, or continue their college prep work. But when they were ready.
Wayne State University in Detroit often welcomes the nation's largest minority freshman undergraduate class, with most of these students earning an average of up to $10,000 in grants. And the six-year graduation rate is in the SINGLE DIGITS, with few students still enrolled. College isn't for everybody.
EricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1498 posts, RR: 1 Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 938 times:
Obama's biggest issue is his lack of compromise - even within his own party.
He loves to blame the Republicans for the gridlock that exists. However, what many fail to consider is that the Democrats controlled both the house & senate during his first two years in office and he still could not get anything meaningful passed. Even his health care plan (which is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court) was a water-downed version of what he originally proposed. He had an extremely tough time just trying to convince his own party to approve this plan.
Regardless of your political preference, and even if you believe everything he says during his campaign, how do you honestly expect any change when his lack of compromise results in gridlock - even within his own party? The gridlock will not change and progress will not be made until he realizes that his way is not the only way.
I would be cautious voting for a candidate that fails to show his/her ability to work with ALL parties (including his own). This flaw is only going to result in 4 more years of gridlock.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 924 times:
Quoting EricR (Reply 88): Regardless of your political preference, and even if you believe everything he says during his campaign, how do you honestly expect any change when his lack of compromise results in gridlock - even within his own party
I’ll ask you the same question. Bush ran into political gridlock as well, beginning late in his first term, among his own party (I previously mentioned this). Obama was able to push most of his agenda through when the Democrats controlled Congress; many Democrats desired him to govern further to the left, but Obama was determined to make an attempt at compromising (e.g. initially refusing to repel the Bush tax cut on the highest-income earners).
Compromise has gradually been vanishing for nearly 30 years (beginning with the rise of politically motivated radio & TV, as I discussed previously). In 2000, Bush campaigned as a centrist who’d work to restore unity within Washington. Instead, he did just the opposite, governing with an iron fist. It’s hard for me to believe that anybody believes Obama’s much less of a compromise than Bush!
And for the record, I have not voted Democrat in any presidential election.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 927 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 75): When my dad found out that the public school I was in was trying to teach me math, history and science that I had already learned 2-3 years before,
Maybe that was because the public schools your Dad rejected were so controlled at the local level (a preference of conservatives) that of course they would be behind schools in other countries where there were federal standards. And with the Holy Rollers working so hard to demand some really weird textbooks they can fall far more than 2 to 3 years.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 76): What was spent per child with the other countries on this list?
Does it really matter when local control keeps the kids behind the competition? See Dreadnought's comments in reply 75.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 76): You believe in equal protection or equal education under the law but not when it comes to taxes.
My taxes supporting local public education primarily come from my property taxes. And a solid chunk of those property taxes are based on voters passing bond issues for education. We actually vote to increase our taxes in order to have a decent school system. Same with Sales Taxes. Those type of taxes are needed and, even though Tulsa is a pretty Red Neck Conservative town we still vote for tax increases.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 76): Where is my equal protection when it comes to being taxed for a school system I do not and will not use
Just because you don't have kids in public schools doesn't mean you don't get any benefit from those local schools. Some drunk runs into you and you head to the ER of a local hospital you are probably going to be taken care of by nurses who were educated in those public schools. You Doc may well have gone to the local high school. And the various people supporting your care, from techs to therapists. may also have been part of that
Quoting windy95 (Reply 76): without the fed telling me where i will go to school
Kids living in neighborhoods will normally go to those schools. Some will go to magnet schools and some will participate in a bussing program. And some will go to private schools. Three out of those 4 choices will be paid for by property taxes to a large degree.
Americans cry out so loud on their privatized health care, but if they need urgent care outside of their primary docs they very seldom are able to make an informed decision. When my father fell & broke his him we were only able to select the doctor group we wanted - the bone doc on call in that group took care of him.
Now if you break a bone on a trip, or need hospitalization for any reason, how are you going to be able to pick out the best doctor for your care? Yellow pages? Amy's List? Maybe call the hospital's Referral Hot Line. Good independent advice?
Or are you going into the system at the hospital where the doctors on call will be called? Probably
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): There should be an apprenticeship path where if school "just ain't your thing", you can go to work for a builder or plumber or appliance installer or whatever and learn the trade.
I've been a supporter of apprenticeship programs since living in Australia. The Jr. Leaving Certificate followed by apprenticeship programs. I've seen situations there where the apprenticeship to trade programs have left these young people better off financially than a lot of college graduates - primarily because of the traditions related to those programs.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 83): Your employer might only pay you $2-3 per hour (you'd still be living with your parents), but after a couple of years you will actually have a skill.
This is where we differ on the apprenticeships. The ultra cheap approach is simply a way to give McDonalds a cheap load of workers in their apprenticeship program of flipping burgers.
Apprenticeship programs need to pay a reasonable pay. It won't be the same as a skilled tradesman, but not charity pay for corporations. While I haven't seen the Aussie scales for years I would bet that you can still find an intelligent scale for apprentices, based on age & experience.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 91, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 923 times:
I hope so, I fill that if we get 4 more years of Obama, this Country, will be back on the right track.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 92, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 900 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 89): Compromise has gradually been vanishing for nearly 30 years
It's a problem because trashing the other side has become the standard in politics.
Just look at today's election:
Quote:
Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a 35-year member of the Senate and one of Washington’s leading experts on U.S. foreign policy, lost his bid for reelection Tuesday after a conservative backlash inside the GOP denied him his party’s nomination for a seventh term.
Another Republican who believed in working for their Country instead of just a party. How amazing that the Republican's most experienced and astute expert in Foreign Relations is so casually tossed aside by the folks wrapped in the Flag.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 89): In 2000, Bush campaigned as a centrist who’d work to restore unity within Washington.
IIRC, Bush was pretty much a moderate when he was Governor.
His problem, as far as I'm concerned, was Cheney. Looks to me that Bush was President and Cheney was CEO. W would have been far better off if he spent some time talking with his Dad.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 93, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 892 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 90): Maybe that was because the public schools your Dad rejected were so controlled at the local level (a preference of conservatives) that of course they would be behind schools in other countries where there were federal standards.
From my discussions with my 14 year old nephew, it's gotten worse. He has not touched algebra yet. I learned it at age 10. He is currently in a public school, and this summer he's going to start going to a private school.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 90):
This is where we differ on the apprenticeships. The ultra cheap approach is simply a way to give McDonalds a cheap load of workers in their apprenticeship program of flipping burgers.
Apprenticeship programs need to pay a reasonable pay. It won't be the same as a skilled tradesman, but not charity pay for corporations. While I haven't seen the Aussie scales for years I would bet that you can still find an intelligent scale for apprentices, based on age & experience.
I'm not talking about just flipping burgers, mopping floors etc. It has to be a comprehensive approach - learning what it takes to run a certain business. If McDonalds had an apprenticeship program, I would expect that the apprentice would do some of everything, from flipping burgers to doing some of the back-office work. When you finish the program, you would have a certificate that you have completed the program.
And I disagree with you about the pay. First of all, the apprenticeship should be an organized 2-3 year program. The employer must commit to ensure that the apprentice learns how to do X,Y,Z. Companies who simply use apprentices as cheap labor should lose their authorization to take apprentices. The company is taking a risk in employing someone who hardly knows how to tie his shoes (literally true - I can attest!), and commit to keeping them for the full program period (you basically should not be able to fire the apprentice apart from really serious transgressions). Hence the lower salary.
Back when I lived in Switzerland, I had to deal with a lot of apprentices and had to train some of them. It is difficult to train kids who are used to doing what is required (like homework) and no more. They always start out having to be told what to do CONSTANTLY. If you turn your back long enough, you will see them playing solitaire or otherwise goofing off. Eventually they will learn to be more proactive and do stuff without you telling them, but it is extra work for you.
That's why kids today have a hard time finding jobs while in high school and college. Employers don't want to employ some kid who costs you (all in) more than $10 per hour and you have to be on his case all the time, when for that price, you can find someone who is actually willing to work hard, but is a bit older - especially in this lousy economy.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 92): Another Republican who believed in working for their Country instead of just a party. How amazing that the Republican's most experienced and astute expert in Foreign Relations is so casually tossed aside by the folks wrapped in the Flag.
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 91): I hope so, I fill that if we get 4 more years of Obama, this Country, will be back on the right track.
Another 4 years our debt will be over 20 trillion (according to Obama's incredibly optimistic budget - I would estimate 22-23 trillion). Sorry, but we can't afford another 4 years.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 94, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 882 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): Employers don't want to employ some kid who costs you (all in) more than $10 per hour and you have to be on his case all the time, when for that price, you can find someone who is actually willing to work hard, but is a bit older - especially in this lousy economy.
Or an illegal alien. Where is the employer side enforcement of immigration?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): Another 4 years our debt will be over 20 trillion (according to Obama's incredibly optimistic budget - I would estimate 22-23 trillion). Sorry, but we can't afford another 4 years.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 95, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 852 times:
That is a bit early for a lot of kids. Grade 4 for algebra? Not really. that is a time for continuous repetition on mechanics. Maybe even some pre-algebra.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): When you finish the program, you would have a certificate that you have completed the program.
An apprenticeship program should result in training that delivers jobs that pay wages sufficient to not require federal or state support. The path to middle class.
The last apprenticeship I looked at (on a tour of facilities) was the mechanic apprenticeship program at Qantas.
No flipping burgers there and it obviously was a multi year program. Pay was established at a national level and was, in part, based on age.
And, as with apprenticeships in the trades, it was a solid path to middle class living.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): First of all, the apprenticeship should be an organized 2-3 year program.
That is what Qantas had. A one year program is a waste of time in the trades.
And what do you think WIllard will deliver? Only thing I can see is WIllard moving his annual income well past $25 Million and cutting taxes for him & his friends dramatically.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 96, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 795 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 93): From my discussions with my 14 year old nephew, it's gotten worse. He has not touched algebra yet. I learned it at age 10. He is currently in a public school, and this summer he's going to start going to a private school.
It hasn't gotten worse, it's gotten better. And unless your nephew is enrolled in a really, really crappy school, the information he's giving you is deceptive.
Historically, Algebra was typically introduced in grade eight to some students and grade nine to most others. However, in the past decade there's been a successful push to introduce the topic a year earlier in many areas. Many schools have been abandoning the traditional math approach and moving toward a modular-style approach (in other words, the student may not proceed with his studies until he's mastered certain modules). Alas, an increasing number of sixth grades are now being granted access to the class.
Additionally, there's an increasing number of public schools expanding AP and IB offerings; many school districts are pooling resources and opening specialty schools for "gifted" students. These schools offer comprehensive calculus courses (multivariable, differential equations, etc.)
I'm inclined to believe that your nephew may benefit from dedicating more time studying or the services of a tutor, not necessarily a new school.
- - -
And as somebody who's taken oodles of calculus, I believe the emphasis on math is overrated. Algebra is great for developing quantitative reasoning, but I don't believe calculus further develops that skill.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 97, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 795 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 95): And what do you think WIllard will deliver? Only thing I can see is WIllard moving his annual income well past $25 Million and cutting taxes for him & his friends dramatically.
To be honest, I think it's too late. Look at what happened in Greece and France. Voters have rejected “austerity”–the idea that governments should live within their means. In Italy, too, anti-austerity candidates are currently leading in the polls. Francois Hollande vows to continue running huge deficits so that he can hire more public sector workers. He announced that “My real enemy is the world of Finance.” I suppose there could be a surer way to impoverish your country than to declare war on the flow of capital, but I can’t think of one offhand..
France has already pushed tax-and-spend to its limits. The government accounts for 56 per cent of the economy, and the French budget was last in balance in 1974. If state expenditure really had a stimulus effect, France would be the wealthiest country in Europe. Same in the US - We've poured 15 trillion dollars worth of stimulus (6 trillion in just the past 4 years) into the economy and it is still growing at a rate insufficient to even keep up with population growth. Remember that every deficit dollar spent is basically Keynesian stimulus.
Even if Romney wins, and even if Tea Party Republicans manage to sweep into the House and Senate with a supermajority, and they start slashing spending, the victory will be short-lived. As we saw in Europe when entitlement spending grows to a substantial part of the population, stopping it results in your quick defeat in the polls, because you have a huge chunk of the population addicted to government services and they react like heroin junkies when you take away their fix. Romney might win 2012, but would get booted out by somebody even more left wing than Obama in 2016, who, like Francois Hollande, will call for 75% taxation, and spend, baby, spend.
I am sincerely starting to think we are completely screwed. We might be able to slow the tide, but only for a few years before the left gains power again by leading mobs of angry freeloaders upset at the GOP for taking away their goodies. Eventually, We will go bankrupt. Our currency won't be worth crap, nobody will lend us any money. I honestly don't see a way out - aprt from the possibility that the people might suddenly become smarter and not fooled by shiny presents (right, as if that'll happen).
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 98, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 783 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97):
I am sincerely starting to think we are completely screwed
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): aprt from the possibility that the people might suddenly become smarter and not fooled by shiny presents (right, as if that'll happen).
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 99, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 782 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): Voters have rejected “austerity”–the idea that governments should live within their means
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): . We might be able to slow the tide, but only for a few years before the left gains power again by leading mobs of angry freeloaders upset at the GOP for taking away their goodies
I rarely agree with Krugman--I think he is a condescending egotistical blowhard--but I do agree with his general point that austerity should be reserved for times during economic booms, not depressions or recessions--when more people need the very services that the government provides. Austerity during a depression makes the situation worse, since it creates greater social tensions. Cut back on the government programs during times of economic expansion, when there is a lesser need for them. Governments dont have to act like businesses--nor should they--and as much as I'm in favor of personal responsibility and not needing to rely on government dole, there is an economic value to social stability (and not having riots in the streets) and providing these programs especially when people are victims of decisions beyond their control. Take away the goodies during times of plenty.
Markets are not perfect, and the government does need to step in on occasion--people decry the bank bailouts, but what people dont understand is that without the bailouts, our economy, and possibly the global financial system would have collapsed. And, btw, the bailouts were also one of the rare instances of the government actually making money and earning a positive return on their investment.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): Our currency won't be worth crap, nobody will lend us any money
As long as the US dollar is the global reserve currency, the US will continue to run a budget deficit--because other countries need US dollars to pay their own bills.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 100, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 780 times:
Quoting mt99 (Reply 98): Glass half empty? lost faith in humanity?
Not in humanity, but in the sheer weight of numbers. There are simply too many stupid people wandering around. I guess it's a downside of progress - we now have all these medical advances, ambulance services that pick you up in minutes with a crew almost capable of surgery - whereas in the old days the stupid rarely lived long enough to reproduce.
Forgive me if I am a bit on a downer, but what's happening in Europe has really shaken me. You basically have people who have been told, in no uncertain terms, that they have spent too much, that the gravy train must end because there is no more money, and the people respond by sacking the people who tell them that, and putting in power those who promise more free shit.
mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6363 posts, RR: 7 Reply 101, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 783 times:
Its the new reality. You need to adapt and move on. The 1950's wont last for ever dude.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): Romney might win 2012, but would get booted out by somebody even more left wing than Obama in 2016, who, like Francois Hollande, will call for 75% taxation, and spend, baby, spend.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 102, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 780 times:
Quoting us330 (Reply 99): I rarely agree with Krugman--I think he is a condescending egotistical blowhard--but I do agree with his general point that austerity should be reserved for times during economic booms, not depressions or recessions--when more people need the very services that the government provides. Austerity during a depression makes the situation worse, since it creates greater social tensions.
I agree with that concept. But if you are waiting for the economy to get better before implementing austerity measures, I think you are in for a very long weight. I'm an experienced economist, and I really don't see how the economy can get any better than what it is now encumbered by so much debt. If the Obama administration had started at zero debt, and he racked up his 5-6 trillion dollars so far, we'd probably be growing at 5-8%, like we saw before coming out of recessions. I think Krugman is wrong - Debt is at a critical mass, where even if the Federal government were somehow able to put in $10 billion in stimulus in one year, it will not jumpstart the economy. It will just add to our debt.
And let me just remind everyone that right now, due to quantitative easing, Interest rates are artificially low. Inflation is creeping up fast - the low rates cannot be sustained for very much longer. I can easily see the interest rate on government debt tripling over the next 5 years, and then we will be in a world of hurt. The wise among us are hunkering down for the coming storm - that is why you see the stock market doing pretty well, but those profits are being stashed away in reserve. Apple alone has $110 billion in cash reserves nearly all parked overseas where the Fed can't confiscate it.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 104, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 718 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 103): If Obama gets a second term, wonder if Hillary Clinton will replace Biden as the vice president? Will Hillary Clinton run again in 2016?
I don't have a high opinion of Obama's intelligence, but he'd be dumb as dirt if he doesn't ditch Biden. The man has been a complete waste of space, and a consistent source of embarrassment, gaffes and stupid comments every couple of weeks.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 105, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 699 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102): I agree with that concept. But if you are waiting for the economy to get better before implementing austerity measures, I think you are in for a very long weight. I'm an experienced economist, and I really don't see how the economy can get any better than what it is now encumbered by so much debt. If the Obama administration had started at zero debt, and he racked up his 5-6 trillion dollars so far, we'd probably be growing at 5-8%, like we saw before coming out of recessions. I think Krugman is wrong - Debt is at a critical mass, where even if the Federal government were somehow able to put in $10 billion in stimulus in one year, it will not jumpstart the economy. It will just add to our debt.
How do you fix it then?
How do you encourage what is left of a middle class to start spending again which is the only way the economy will really get going as they spend more than the rich as a percentage of income.
The average person is afraid to make any big purchases because they may not have a job tomorrow. Corporations are loaded with cash but obviously prefer to create jobs in China where there is more growth which is fine because their job is to make money.
I agree we have to tighten our belts but at least in the US you should not be firing teachers and having tertiary education cost so much. If there is any such thing as good stimulus then that is it, along with infrastructure and should be cut last even after medicare and social security but because old people vote more they stay.
Those things might suck in the short term but having educated people is the best long term investment. The thing the drives me nuts about the current GOP is that they want to cut those things but not a peep about defense spending, farm subsidies etc.
It is also incredibly irresponsible to take a chain saw to government expenditures for the sake of a balanced budget and if a GOP government did that they US will make Europe look like a paradise. Also I really hope you don't favour stripping away democratic rights during a time like this, because money is not more important than freedom.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100): Forgive me if I am a bit on a downer, but what's happening in Europe has really shaken me. You basically have people who have been told, in no uncertain terms, that they have spent too much, that the gravy train must end because there is no more money, and the people respond by sacking the people who tell them that, and putting in power those who promise more free shit.
People are pissed because they used and liked the programs that now have lost and yes it was stupid of the governments to put it on the credit card. When you take something away from an honest citizen they get pissed (just as you would be if the government seized your land because simply put they can) and their is an argument to make that some people would prefer the tax hikes. You don't see this debt crisis in the Scandinavian countries because that 65% tax rate funds it. I have no pity for the tax cheats in Greece however.
Might I add your generation is a hell of a lot more responsible for this mess than mine as my age group is largely just entering the work force and we have just started contributing as adults.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 106, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 669 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104): I don't have a high opinion of Obama's intelligence, but he'd be dumb as dirt if he doesn't ditch Biden.
Same as what Bush did for his second term. He should of ditched Cheney and put in someone who would of been a good candidate for the next election. That is what gave us McCain,
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): How do you encourage what is left of a middle class to start spending again which is the only way the economy will really get going as they spend more than the rich as a percentage of income.
Vote out Obama and put someone who knows how to run a business in charge. Then Kill every program that has been implemented since he came to office and then I might go out and buy a new car. But for now I will spend nothing until the election is over.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): Corporations are loaded with cash but obviously prefer to create jobs in China where there is more growth which is fine because their job is to make money.
They could let the Corporations repatriate the overseas cash tax free and that would create a nice stimulus.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): The thing the drives me nuts about the current GOP is that they want to cut those thing
Most do not want to cut education. We just want the money left in the communities and let them decide. Eliminate the Federal money and leave the money in the states. It will be spent more wisely.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): It is also incredibly irresponsible to take a chain saw to government expenditures for the sake of a balanced budget and if a GOP government did that they US will make Europe look like a paradise
You have to hit bottom before you can heal. Does a Dr take out the tumor in pieces. It could be done in a 3 to 5 year plan.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): When you take something away from an honest citizen they get pissed
But that citizen should be educated enough to realise that the bill will come due one day. And they are the ones who keep voting in the idiots taking care of the cookie jar. They should be pissed at themselves for expecting other citizens to pay the bill now.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): their is an argument to make that some people would prefer the tax hikes.
Yes the ones that prefer that are the ones who have created nothing and have nothing to lose. Good argument.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 107, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 655 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): They could let the Corporations repatriate the overseas cash tax free and that would create a nice stimulus.
I don't think they will, growth is in other places now and we need new entrepreneurship to fill that void.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): You have to hit bottom before you can heal. Does a Dr take out the tumor in pieces. It could be done in a 3 to 5 year plan.
We have a different definition on what the tumour is and what your country is refusing to touch is the tumour. Which is defense and military endeavours that have run up the bill without any benefit. All the accounted costs of Iraq was about $3 trillion to date with no benefit at all really. Deal with that and entitlement which needs to be fixed and then you have money to pay back the debt or spend it on something that expands the economy.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): But that citizen should be educated enough to realise that the bill will come due one day. And they are the ones who keep voting in the idiots taking care of the cookie jar. They should be pissed at themselves for expecting other citizens to pay the bill now.
I agree and I come from a country that is has its fiscal sh*t together. As said in the Euro thread a lot of this is kicking the snake oil salesman
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): Yes the ones that prefer that are the ones who have created nothing and have nothing to lose. Good argument.
You might not want to balance a budget without tax hikes but it doesn't mean that some won't be willing to go that way.
The reality is you need both to achieve anything sustainable unless your ultimate goal is crash the economy and start over again.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): Vote out Obama and put someone who knows how to run a business in charge. Then Kill every program that has been implemented since he came to office and then I might go out and buy a new car. But for now I will spend nothing until the election is over.
I think Romney on his own would be a good president because you probably do need a business man to do some unpopular stuff for at least 4 years. However I fear that he will be enslaved to the kooks on the right in congress that are no better than Nancy Pelosi.
If you want a business man then pick someone who started something from nothing, heck I would prefer Herman Cain to Romney because he ran a business that made something that people wanted even if it was only Pizza.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 106): Most do not want to cut education. We just want the money left in the communities and let them decide. Eliminate the Federal money and leave the money in the states. It will be spent more wisely.
That's a fair point but it is the states and local districts that are firing the teachers and not the feds. I do not believe that education and greedy teachers are the real cause for those sackings, I think they are the scapegoat for mistakes made on other aspects of those budgets and are an easy target because they have a union.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 108, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 643 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104): I don't have a high opinion of Obama's intelligence, but he'd be dumb as dirt if he doesn't ditch Biden. The man has been a complete waste of space, and a consistent source of embarrassment, gaffes and stupid comments every couple of weeks.
While I don't agree with Biden's politics I have to say I've recently warmed up to the guy. At this point he's hilarious. It's too bad the media isn't always on top of Biden's gaffes because if they were they could make a page a day calendar like they did for years with W.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 109, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 628 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 108): While I don't agree with Biden's politics I have to say I've recently warmed up to the guy.
Oh, sure, he seems like a friendly enough guy who would be fun to know. But the guy has an astounding record of being wrong on just about every aspect of foreign policy, and is prone to having complete brain freezes when his mouth is open and near a microphone. The idea of him in any position of power is genuinely frightening (and as some have said before - Biden is Obama's guarantee that no American, no matter how racist, would wish to assassinate him).
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): How do you fix it then?
How do you encourage what is left of a middle class to start spending again which is the only way the economy will really get going as they spend more than the rich as a percentage of income.
You are asking how to get the middle class spending again - and by extention - how do we get the typical post-recession boom going again. The answer is, IMHO, you can't. I don't think we will ever again get to 5-8%+ growth spurts (even for short periods) until we get our debt down to maybe 75% of GDP or less. That means not only balancing the budget, but paying back a few trillion.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): I agree we have to tighten our belts but at least in the US you should not be firing teachers and having tertiary education cost so much.
If you eliminate all federal school funding, and eliminate the federal college loan system (make it totally private), I'd bet you everything I have that university tuition (and even college book prices) will drop precipitously - maybe by 50%. The reason tuition has increase so fast (far faster than healthcare or any other industry I can think of over the past couple of decades is that Universities realized that the money was being made available via subsidized student loans. It's the stimulus effect. Take all that away, and the universities will have to drop their rates in order to fill up their classrooms. They would also have to be more careful about staff salaries, and I expect that they would not be building huge stadiums like they do now.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): Also I really hope you don't favour stripping away democratic rights during a time like this, because money is not more important than freedom.
No, I don't. Although I have to admit that the idea of restricting the vote to people who actually pay net income taxes is tempting - but would be far too easy to abuse.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): People are pissed because they used and liked the programs that now have lost and yes it was stupid of the governments to put it on the credit card. When you take something away from an honest citizen they get pissed (just as you would be if the government seized your land because simply put they can) and their is an argument to make that some people would prefer the tax hikes. You don't see this debt crisis in the Scandinavian countries because that 65% tax rate funds it. I have no pity for the tax cheats in Greece however.
So just because your grandparents got something, you should get it too, even if we realize that it's a terribly bad idea and unaffordable?
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 105): Might I add your generation is a hell of a lot more responsible for this mess than mine as my age group is largely just entering the work force and we have just started contributing as adults.
I'll admit to responsibility through GWB. But it was largely the youth vote that pushed Obama through, and his deficits have far outstretched anyone in history. Including all war costs, Federal expenditures peaked at 20% of GDP under GWB. It spiked to 25% in 2009, but we will forgive that because it was an emergency - but Obama's administration (aided by a Democratic Senate that refuses to allow Obama to be restricted to any budget) has kept expenditures at 25% of GDP. The recession ended a couple of years ago - all we are doing is wasting money. And your generation (in the US anyway) helped vote these guys in.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): I think Romney on his own would be a good president because you probably do need a business man to do some unpopular stuff for at least 4 years. However I fear that he will be enslaved to the kooks on the right in congress that are no better than Nancy Pelosi.
One side wants to balance the budget, the other one doesn't give a crap. How can you say they are just as bad?
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 110, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 627 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): You might not want to balance a budget without tax hikes but it doesn't mean that some won't be willing to go that way.
Tax code is complicated enough as it is--how about before instituting any new taxes, we close as many of the existing loopholes as we can, and see how much that generates (ie ending this whole making a second home tax deductible nonsense). Seems to be a sensible measure to me--you arent actually imposing any new taxes, but you would be increasing the avenues to raise tax revenue.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 111, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 590 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109): Including all war costs, Federal expenditures peaked at 20% of GDP under GWB. It spiked to 25% in 2009, but we will forgive that because it was an emergency - but Obama's administration (aided by a Democratic Senate that refuses to allow Obama to be restricted to any budget) has kept expenditures at 25% of GDP. The recession ended a couple of years ago - all we are doing is wasting money. And your generation (in the US anyway) helped vote these guys in.
One of the biggest reasons Obama defecits are so high is that he has actually put the wars on the books. Something Bush did not do as they were off budget spending.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109): I don't think we will ever again get to 5-8%+ growth spurts (even for short periods) until we get our debt down to maybe 75% of GDP or less. That means not only balancing the budget, but paying back a few trillion.
How does that affect Middle class spending? What the government is doing is not a concern to the average person.
I really doubt that someone is holding out buying a house because the government can't balance their budget, its more than just government debt killing spending.
I can see personal debt killing spending it and if that goes down its good for everyone. If one is fearing inflation then buy now while interest rates are effectively 0.
The private sector isn't spending either if they were then cuts would be a lot easier. Also a 5-8% is a very high growth rate for a mature economy (3-4% is the max you are getting) as the high end of that is a conservative estimate of Chinese growth.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109): So just because your grandparents got something, you should get it too, even if we realize that it's a terribly bad idea and unaffordable?
I didn't say that, I know that a pension among other things are not coming my way most likely. My generation is one that is going to have to largely self fund their retirements.
My main point is that we didn't cause this and don't act like this is a problem that started in 2009. Poor fiscal policy has existed in the US since the 80's (outside of a few Clinton surpluses)
Quoting us330 (Reply 110): Tax code is complicated enough as it is--how about before instituting any new taxes, we close as many of the existing loopholes as we can, and see how much that generates (ie ending this whole making a second home tax deductible nonsense). Seems to be a sensible measure to me--you arent actually imposing any new taxes, but you would be increasing the avenues to raise tax revenue.
I agree and I'm not proposing massive tax hikes however the mentality of those in Europe is more towards tax hikes than massive spending cuts.
Here is the problem with closing loopholes its a fine idea however the interests that own congress want those loopholes open because they benefit from them.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 112, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 584 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 111): One of the biggest reasons Obama defecits are so high is that he has actually put the wars on the books. Something Bush did not do as they were off budget spending.
That old chestnut. Look it up. The numbers I used include all war costs. The only things not included is social security, which is considered off-budget - separately funded.
The fact that GWB had a habit of pushing through a separate funding bill does not stop all the expenses from ending up on the historical actuals, such as here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals All numbers up to 2011 are ACTUALS.
The BS about the spending being "hidden" is just that - BS.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 113, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 576 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112): That old chestnut. Look it up. The numbers I used include all war costs. The only things not included is social security, which is considered off-budget - separately funded.
The fact that GWB had a habit of pushing through a separate funding bill does not stop all the expenses from ending up on the historical actuals, such as here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals All numbers up to 2011 are ACTUALS.
The BS about the spending being "hidden" is just that - BS.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 114, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 521 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 111): How does that affect Middle class spending? What the government is doing is not a concern to the average person.
It very much is a concern. Many people like myself are saving up for another big dip or more layoffs. At the pace this government is going the bill will have to paid sooner than later. Many of my friends. including some with a small business are doing the same.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 111): I really doubt that someone is holding out buying a house because the government can't balance their budget, its more than just government debt killing spending
Sorry but they are.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 109): If you eliminate all federal school funding, and eliminate the federal college loan system (make it totally private), I'd bet you everything I have that university tuition (and even college book prices) will drop precipitously - maybe by 50%. The reason tuition has increase so fast (far faster than healthcare or any other industry I can think of over the past couple of decades is that Universities realized that the money was being made available via subsidized student loans. It's the stimulus effect
Bingo. I was looking for a recent graph but could not find it but it showed the meteoric rise of College tuition since the Dept of Ed was first started.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): That's a fair point but it is the states and local districts that are firing the teachers and not the feds. I do not believe that education and greedy teachers are the real cause for those sackings, I think they are the scapegoat for mistakes made on other aspects of those budgets
You have to remember that in many states like here in Florida we are devastated by the housing collapse. The revenues for the State and the Counties in many areas is half of what it was before the collapse. They are laying of workers in all areas. This is not an attack on education but just a reality. The teachers who are left just have to work harder.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): However I fear that he will be enslaved to the kooks on the right in congress
Come on enough of that. How are the far right kooks for wanting to follow the law of the land 9The Constitution) and for wanting to balance the budget. People have been on the gravy train for to long and just do not want to deal with the pain.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): We have a different definition on what the tumour is and what your country is refusing to touch is the tumour. Which is defense and military endeavours that have run up the bill without any benefit.
Yes defense needs to be touched. But out of all the spending that the feds have defense is one of the few that the constitution actually authorises. So no the tumour is the unconstitutional spending that tis not in the powers given to the Feds by the States to spend on.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): All the accounted costs of Iraq was about $3 trillion to date with no benefit at all really.
From what I have read it is not even close to that. But I am not an Iraq war fan and yes it was a waste like Vietnam.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 107): Deal with that and entitlement which needs to be fixed and then you have money to pay back the debt or spend it on something that expands the economy.
No pay off the Fed debt and then lower taxes and leave the money in the states where it belongs. No more federal spending unless it falls under the Constitution.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 495 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 114): They are laying of workers in all areas. This is not an attack on education but just a reality. The teachers who are left just have to work harder.
I fully agree with you, yet parents demand low student-teacher ratios, more competitive curriculum, full athletic programs, an array of extra curricular activities, etc. Growth in athletic programs, generally huge cash drains, has flourished in the past decade. I'd much rather have a property tax rebate than to pay for "color guard" to travel around the state playing with flags. Competitive flag girls? Seriously?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 114): Bingo. I was looking for a recent graph but could not find it but it showed the meteoric rise of College tuition since the Dept of Ed was first started.
The biggest factor for soaring tuition is the heavy cuts in state subsidies over the past decade. The biggest factor in the rise of the cost per student is soaring enrollment. Colleges have spent millions expanding to accommodate these new students, and often the students aren't prepared for college. Thus, millions are spent annually on services (remedial courses, supplemental instruction, tutors, etc.) that really shouldn't be necessary. And much like public secondary schools, colleges have been forced to offer lower student-teacher ratios, attract star faculty, increase diversity, expand athletic programs, etc. Forbes estimates that fewer than a dozen each football and basketball programs are profitable, with all other teams and programs losing big bucks. And in the quest for diversity, Wayne State University in Detroit has given millions in grants (in addition to subsided tuition) to the nation's largest African-American undergraduate class. Only a small percentage will graduate, however. Abolishing the Department of Education will offer little relief.
I'm sorry, but few Americans care about their national debt, let alone defer purchase decisions because of it.
The housing market is still in shambles in part because young people aren't forming households, primarily because the lack the income to do so. While I firmly believe Obama's stimulus plan failed, I also believe our economy isn't going to fully recover as long as businesses aren't willing to hire American employees. Unfortunately, we could offer a 0% tax rate -- heck, even PAY them to operate here -- and many will still outsource work abroad if it saves them a buck. Basic economics dictates the trickle down effect (I pay workers, they spend money here, which keeps others employed, etc.). Unfortunately, it's no longer about America. It's about ourselves. Obama, Romeny, George Washington, FDR, whoever, won't make a difference.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Reply 116, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 476 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): To be honest, I think it's too late. Look at what happened in Greece and France.
The best way to pull the country down is to get the population to lower their levels of confidence in the future.
Our problem today is the shrinking middle class and the efforts by the right to shrink this group even more. Those who have been pushed out of the middle class (and those at risk today) have less confidence in the country and that brings the recovery down.
The queer thing is that when we cur government spending we add to costs of support for those not employed. And corporate profits (and taxes) go down. Guess that looks really good to the TPers.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 97): Even if Romney wins, and even if Tea Party Republicans manage to sweep into the House and Senate with a supermajority, and they start slashing spending, the victory will be short-lived
The more of the Flag Wrapped Right Wing Nuts get elected the more concerned I get about our future. There is zero understanding in that group of the damage they can do. But, hey, another million or so becoming unemployed - no big deal for them as long as taxes are cut.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100): Not in humanity, but in the sheer weight of numbers. There are simply too many stupid people wandering around. I guess it's a downside of progress - we now have all these medical advances, ambulance services that pick you up in minutes with a crew almost capable of surgery - whereas in the old days the stupid rarely lived long enough to reproduce.
So maybe the Tea Party can add forced euthanasia to the platform. You get an intelligence test from the ambulance crew to see if they have to treat you. People don't like your political positions might get you on "the list" The Tea Party can call it a Stand Your Ground act.
Hard to believe as we don't know what long term costs are, Look at the current total costs of, say, WW II vets. There was no way at the time to accurately project the long term costs of the GI Bill or VA care of (and payments to) the veterans who served. Same situation these days - there is no way to accurately cost out where we are in total costs for these vets. Or the total costs of replacing all the supplies and equipment.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, RR: 22 Reply 117, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 475 times:
I won't bother with most of your post because most of the comments are so far out in Obamaland it's no longer funny, but
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 116): So maybe the Tea Party can add forced euthanasia to the platform. You get an intelligence test from the ambulance crew to see if they have to treat you. People don't like your political positions might get you on "the list"
I would remind you that forced euthianasia, sterilization, silencing of dissent have been a halmark of progressivism throughout the 20th century. You really want to go there?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 116): Best guess of actuals. There are far too many cost factors out there, from care of vets to replacement of equipment and supplies.
No guess. This is accounting. The numbers are what they are. If you want to talk about unfunded liabilities, that is a separate study, (and a valid one at that), but if you want to go there, you will also have to address the approximately $118 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities caused by Medicare and Social Security. Vets etc hardly hold a candle to that number.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2559 posts, RR: 5 Reply 118, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 444 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): I fully agree with you, yet parents demand low student-teacher ratios, more competitive curriculum, full athletic programs, an array of extra curricular activities, etc. Growth in athletic programs, generally huge cash drains, has flourished in the past decade. I'd much rather have a property tax rebate than to pay for "color guard" to travel around the state playing with flags. Competitive flag girls? Seriously?
Well it would come as no surprise to you but I am fully for funding your child in public school sports. Spend the money on Tech and job skills that can be used if the student is not or cannot go to college. I pay for my sons private school and help fund his schools soccer team along with the Soccer club traveling team he is on so why do I also have to fund the public system and their sports teams? I do not have a problem putting some money into the public system but I should receive a rebate of some kind.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): The biggest factor for soaring tuition is the heavy cuts in state subsidies over the past decade.
Probably a big factor in most states. Here in Florida Gov. Scott is trying to use public funds to target degrees in area that the state needs and where they see job growth in the state. Some people are not happy because it is no in general degrees but I think the money needs to be spent wisely.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): The biggest factor in the rise of the cost per student is soaring enrollment
Caused by the Cheap money from the Feds. get rid of the US dept of ED and remove the government from the student loan business.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): . Forbes estimates that fewer than a dozen each football and basketball programs are profitable, with all other teams and programs losing big bucks
No problem with them dropping most sports.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): Abolishing the Department of Education will offer little relief.
Sorry but I have to disagree with you on htis
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 115): I'm sorry, but few Americans care about their national debt, let alone defer purchase decisions because of it.
I will not argue with you on this but from where I stand I see it with many of my friends and family. It is a waiting game hoping that Obama and the Dems are pushed out. And not spening any money until then for business or pleasure.
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8803 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7880 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8392 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2754 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Jun 2005, 1448 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11434 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2044 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
