Give that man a Willkie button!
All great points Ken. And I guess the use of the terms red and blue states could be provocative. I've lived in both many times in my life and they all have pros and cons.
But guess when we are mainly concerned with military matters, we are concerned about the military budget. How will it be funded in years to come when so many other obligations to include the deficit are looming?
My pro-Republican argument is that you cannot spend $77 billion at the federal level on education as proposed...because as my "wife" argument showed, there are already too many folks at higher HQ who make life harder for local educators. Increasing pell grants is nice...you don't get diddly squat when you have a decent income and that would not change. At some point you must look at making college cheaper...not providing more federal money to allow it to get more expensive.
My pro-Democratic argument is that rich folks can afford to pay more taxes than they already do. If they don't want their kids to serve, then they should at least pick up more of the tab for those who are so willing.
Another example. We sent our girl to a reasonably priced private college because she wanted to play tennis and they had a good reputation for education and were not that far away. It ended up being about as cheap as sending my son to Auburn where he had to drop Calculus II because he could not understand the Chinese assistant instructor teaching it. So again, you cannot always claim that additional tax money spent on public institutions is providing a proven product.
Get the idea. It is possible to discuss the issues without a flame war. No revolutions required. Education may be part of the answer to making our economy better, but simply throwing $77 billion at it in 2012, a 20% increase over 2010, is not necessarily going to be money better spent than say an extra billion and a half spent each year to have a split buy on KC-X and put 98,000 to work in a long term high tech aerospace industry that does not require college.
Give that man a Willkie button!
Last edited by Pete; 02-21-2011 at 05:47 AM.
Education is a major issue and a major problem, but throwing money is not going to help. The US graduates huge numbers yearly with expensive degrees that are economically irrelevant. Meanwhile industries looking for machinists, precision welders, and other skilled-trade employees can't find qualified applicants, even with unemployment near 10%.Originally Posted by Cole
Decades ago our educational system de-linked from the economy with the belief that everyone should go to college and get a liberal arts degree. That has to change. Ultimately I suspect that we may have to skew the system back by offering heavy subsidies for education in engineering, hard science, and the skilled trades and making degrees in subjects with limited demand very expensive. A society with more astrologers than astronomers is going to be at a significant disadvantage in the 21st century.
My Mother In Law was big on moderation and balance...
I don't see them as provocative, I think suggesting that one or the other is full of cretins might be. That would be both unbalanced (both have pros and cons is balanced) and immoderate...Valid question and topic Note A and B below:But guess when we are mainly concerned with military matters, we are concerned about the military budget. How will it be funded in years to come when so many other obligations to include the deficit are looming?
A:B:My pro-Republican argument is that you cannot spend $77 billion at the federal level on education as proposed...because as my "wife" argument showed, there are already too many folks at higher HQ who make life harder for local educators. Increasing pell grants is nice...you don't get diddly squat when you have a decent income and that would not change. At some point you must look at making college cheaper...not providing more federal money to allow it to get more expensive.
We should not spend $77 billion at the federal level on education as proposed, it merely puts a band aid on the real problem. At some point you must look at making college cheaper...providing more federal money is likely to allow it to get more expensive.
A:B:My pro-Democratic argument is that rich folks can afford to pay more taxes than they already do. If they don't want their kids to serve, then they should at least pick up more of the tab for those who are so willing.
We aren't overtaxed, in fact the well off or rich folks could easily pay more -- the problem is our tax system is skewed. The Feds take in over 60% of all government revenue but spend only about 40$ of all government expenditures. The difference is handled by grants and trnsfers and this inefficient way of doing business has been a factor in our economic problems for year under adminsitrations from both parties.
... ...
The foregoing is provided, mostly tongue in cheek and really without intending any snark, to unnecessarily edit your two not really provocative comments. Aside from changing glad to happy, all I did was take out the reference to political parties. Note also that your comment was even handed. The problem I see is that everyone doesn't always try to be balanced -- even I screw that up on occasion-- and if one seems to be slamming one side (or protecting the other) that tends to invite argumentive comments.
I totally agree -- and that's why I do my best to only intrude when someone -- not necessarily you -- seems to be getting one sided instead of trying be reasonably balanced and stick to the policy in question and not the party or faction involved.Get the idea. It is possible to discuss the issues without a flame war. No revolutions required.
We all have ideological leanings and biases, the owners of this site merely ask that we leave those at the door and be civil. The key to discussion where there must be a political content is, I think moderation and balance. As long as those two traits are present, there's not going to be any interference by me.True. We'll see what the final amount in the budget that actually gets signed into law happens to be...Education may be part of the answer to making our economy better, but simply throwing $77 billion at it in 2012, a 20% increase over 2010, is not necessarily going to be money better spent than say an extra billion and a half spent each year to have a split buy on KC-X and put 98,000 to work in a long term high tech aerospace industry that does not require college.
P.S.
I'm still confused over the :conflict of interest" and the Two Cop kids...
Don't ever ever try to drop Ken for push-ups. It'll come back on you in strange ways.
Because I was talking about the cost of state and city employees, and suddenly the topic was incendiary.I'm still confused over the :conflict of interest" and the Two Cop kids...
I will add that one of my Los Angeles brothers is a lawyer who once owned a Karate studio and years ago was turned down for the Oakland Police due to hearing damage in one ear from a childhood injury. Another tried to get into the special forces but had a wrist injury from football and was thus excluded. That's the one that just climbed a 14,500' mountain with his wife at age 47.
Yet I'm confident that these kind of inequities/disabilities will continue to exclude good candidates while normal physiological differences between men and women will be overlooked in the name of P.C. and women will make their way into the combat arms without having to carry 100 lb backpacks or lift 100 lb artillery shells.
Saw an interesting interview in which a small business owner was interviewed side-by-side with a Wisconsin teacher. The teacher was complaining that his two-teacher family would lose about $13,000 in income due to Gov Walker's proposals. It struck me that in some states, that small business owner could easily pay half that $13,000 in property taxes not to mention workmen's comp and sales tax that would put it well above $13K on far less income. She had to work a part time job to get medical insurance that the Wisconsin teacher family was getting at less than the national average.
The one fit brother mentioned earlier has owned a small restaurant/bar for many years yet can only afford to live in a small house on his father-in-laws spacial land...the retired local Caltran supervisor. He is constantly irritated by the taxes he must pay to own a business. Another relative owns a fiber-optic company in Louisiana that he has spent millions building up with partners...only to see the federal goverment compete with him by installing line with taxpayer "stimulus" funds.
On a different but related subject, in this nation a college degree artificially appears to discriminate between the haves/have nots even though its actual workplace value is often questionable...particularly a liberal arts degree. The two teacher family feels put upon that the lesser educated small business owner would object to having to pay higher taxes to payroll that teacher couple and their benefits. I will wager that Ken does not have a master's degree yet few would question his wisdom and knowledge. What ever happened to OJT having as much value as a degree or union card?
You'll have to excuse me as I need to get ready for work. Those of us in the private sector without union representation and tax-funded government jobs don't get today off. I will add that I have no objection to the pay of many state and local government workers. In Alabama, for instance, I'm sure Slapout would have been happy to retire at half the pay that San Jose cops start out at.
Funny you should mention that. I had an offline conversation with Bob's World about Police pay in the South vs. some place out West. A Patrol Sergeant out West(cant remember where) makes almost as much as my old Chief of Police...unbelieveable
Very good question because it is different. The concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a non-elected, non-accountable few has never been as great as it is now. Republicans and Democrats just don't matter anymore IMO, very little difference and to many similarities. It is about the Moral destruction of our country, its about To Big to fail,To Big to go to jail,To Big to pay your share.those that endured the recessions of 50-75 and the one before that which went through the Depression didn't get angry. Why should the current crew get angry when this is no worse than the 53 and 74 recessions and nowhere near the 30s...
Could it be that years of 'entitlement' lead to spoiled recipients?
The 74 recession may have been a real tipping point as far as what we should have done and still need to do. Hint Nixon figured it out. I will give more details later but I have stuff to do. Until then enjoy some music for the Revolution and you listening pleasure from the Cultural Center of the Universe.
Jimmy Cliff-"The Harder They Come" go Rasta Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrq9TWw6sQE
On a related note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gi...eport_2009.png
higher = greater income inequality
Now maybe you look at the graphic and think of how U.S. citizens often bash Canada, but there's more:
"Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden"
Last edited by Fuchs; 02-21-2011 at 05:43 PM. Reason: pic size
History...
sez not so...
It's just as bad as its been in the memory of most alive today. Most. Not all.
Agree mostly -- they still affect things but both are in need of a moral rebirth -- if 'moral' and 'politics' aren't contraindicated.Republicans and Democrats just don't matter anymore IMO, very little difference and to many similarities.Yep.It is about the Moral destruction of our country, its about To Big to fail,To Big to go to jail,To Big to pay your share.
Cole:
I missed the connection about state and city employees. Totally. Never even occurred to me. Nor should it have. What you wrote was not an issue.
What did occur to me was the use of the words Republican and Tea Party by Pete followed immediately by the mention of the Koch Brothers by Motorfirebox. Neither of them was wrong, just that a trend was developing.
As my Mom used to tell me "It's not always about you..."As one who put in some hard time on a whole big bunch of Holidays, Christmases, etc, for a whole lot less money, you have my empathy.Those of us in the private sector without union representation and tax-funded government jobs don't get today off. I will add that I have no objection to the pay of many state and local government workers.
Okay, so tax-funded private sector jobs are okay?
Any way, don't work too hard and I hope today was a good 'un for ya.
Last edited by Ken White; 02-21-2011 at 10:40 PM.
What's your point?
Okay. Can I at the same time think of how many Canadian citizens often bash the US? Can I think of how many citizens in many countries do that for some good and bad reasons, not least the net US:Rest of the World wealth disparity?Ah, yes. From that possibly, even probably, skewed survey note these items in Italic quotes:Study: Most Americans want wealth distribution similar to Sweden
""The authors suggest the reason that American voters have not made more of an issue of the growing income gap is that they may simply not be aware of it. "Second, just as people have erroneous beliefs about the actual level of wealth inequality, they may also hold overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States, beliefs which in turn may drive support for unequal distributions of wealth," they write.""
My observation has been over many years in the US that most -- not all -- people are aware of the gap and do not care. It has also been that the bulk of expressed concern on the topic is from left leaning tanks and academics and the occasional person with a populist bent who wants to gripe.
Further, most know that the upward mobility is not a myth but that it does take luck, hard work and ambition. So most applaud those that proceed upward and go buy a lottery ticket...
This item is key: ""The authors also note that, though there may be widespread agreement about income inequality, there is no agreement on what caused it or what should be done about it."" Exactly and that's true even among the previously cited leaners and academics.
""Americans exhibit a general disconnect between their attitudes towards economic inequality and their self-interest and public policy preferences, suggesting that even given increased awareness of the gap between ideal and actual wealth distributions, Americans may remain unlikely to advocate for policies that would narrow this gap," the authors argue."" (emphasis added / kw)
Exactly again -- so what was your point?
Wow. There are so many issues.
By the 1970's, cities were aging badly, with the three C's pulling them down (Crime, Costs and Cancer), so they were abandoned for the low-tax suburbs.
New schools and new teachers (at low salaries) in the inner suburbs are now evolving into older schools with higher operating costs, and older teachers (at peak salaries) shifting to retirement, so the old city costs of old retirees and new hires is catching up to the inner suburbs, and looming for many of those newer suburbs.
Behind that is the loss of interest income. A billion in pension funds can earn $100 million at ten percent, and $15 million at one and one-half percent. Albeit many pension funds were under-secured---a matter being addressed through GASB accounting standards beginning in the mid, late 2000s, the interest collapse came before the ship could be righted, and pulled the floor out from under states and localities at the same time they were accruing real losses due to the stupid investment vehicles they were advised into.
While it is entertaining to hear the same old "governments are stupid" argument, the fact is that, absent the interest collapse, economic decline, housing bubble burst, and bad investments, all cascading on states and localities in a few short years, none of these problems and criticisms would exist.
Instead, they are facing fundamental new conditions never contemplated by US federal and financial gurus, and are struggling to stay upright without federal assistance (unlike last year where the Stim money was a bridge).
Let's see---unfunded deficits this year are about the same as last year's stimulus flow. If there is no other funding source, and no longer an expectation of temporariness to the circumstances, then, there is a potential crisis that has not yet been thought through.
State and local layoffs and halted purchasing may, by next year, start to thunder into the national economy, and drive even more national deficits.
Questions and answered which have been avoided, so far, are structural.
What if Las Vegas is permanently overbuilt, overpopulated by 25%? Where do those folks go? What becomes of property values, teacher pension obligations, etc...?
By contrast, a return to boom times would completely eliminate all of this.
Yes, if we didn't have problems, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately booms are not generally sustainable, and if we rely on a boom to keep the ship afloat, we have a problem.
One of our biggest problems is that governments like booms, and do all they can to support them. We only ever hear about "countercyclic intervention" during down cycles; nobody intervenes to chill a boom. Booms lead to busts, though, and the bigger we inflate them the harder they fall... and it's all too easy for our efforts to cushion the fall to set up the conditions for the next cycle.
I've often wondered about the extent to which OBL was responsible for the severity of the recent recession, in ways he would probably never have anticipated. We can't know what would have been, of course, but GWB had a few decent paleocon impulses and a few advisers who might have pointed in the right direction, and it's at least possible that without a war he might have done the right thing. All speculation, of course...
Central banks can cool down boobs, and some of them really did so.
Politicians cannot really cool down a boom, their failure is primarily that they fail to devise surplus budgets during a boom.
That again is acceptable if the economic growth trend is stronger than the deficit. Countries with population growth can sustain (for the duration of said growth) significant budget deficits without an increase in % GDP public debt.
@Ken: I provided some additional food for thought, you don't need to assume a big point in everything.
It's appreciated.
Seriously. Didn't really mean to make a big deal out of it. I've heard about that income Gap for years, yep, it is worse now than its been for a while but Americans are very tolerant of it.
Most European hearth nations dislike ostentation and strive for income equality. As the Australians say "Cut down the tall poppy..." The US has never really adopted that attitude (except for those who try, generally unsuccessfully, to ape European sophistication and savoir faire). Americans are if nothing else not opposed to a bit of ostentatious behavior. We have only rarely been concerned with income inequality. We have no royalty or nobility (most of whom learned in the 19th Century to be quite discreet) and substitute the wealthy for those classes. So, not a big deal nor is it anything new or anything that is likely to change much...
Now why would anyone want to cool down a nice hot set of... oh, ok, it's a typo, but really, who could resist?
Politicians can work with their Central Banks; the separation is not nearly as complete as it's set up to be. There's also a great deal that politicians can do outside the purely economic realm. Many booms are to a large extent driven as much by psychological as economic factors, and none more so than the collective psychosis of the late '90's equity bubble, the reverberations of which are still with us. There's a lot that could have been done to influence perception there... but we were balancing the budget by taxing (very hypothetical) capital gains, and everybody was having fun, and who wants to spoil a good party?
Doing too much to cushion a bust is as bad, of course... have to wonder what would have happened if the derivatives markets had been allowed their deserved and needed crash in 2001/2002...
Now that's funny. the original typo was "boombs", I don't seem to have corrected that well before submitting the reply....
I've actually been wondering when JMA would drop by and propose resolving the financial crisis by dropping boombs on somebody, or possibly firing cruise missiles.
I personally prefer boobs to boombs, but that's just me being a pervert.
It’ll all go boobs up if you drop the wrong ordnance. ### for tat and all that.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
If you get the chance watch the Rachel Maddox show from tonight(first 10 minutes). Appears the Wisconsin Governor has pulled this stunt before when he was some type of a County Commissioner. Financial mayhem will happen if we don't cut the budget so he Privatized the local Court Security force. And it ended up costing the government more than it is was supposed to save, he also hired a convicted felon
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks