Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ 70 Percent Of Americans Don't Have A College Degree :(

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 9 2016, 09:09 PM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/08/rick-santorum/70-americans-dont-have-college-degree-rick-santoru/

I really hope that in 2017, we can get our numbers up a bit. Especially in education. My fondest wish is that everyone can go to school and get an education and not be burdened by crippling debt afterward. In Europe, many countries have FREE College I think American students should have that option as well. If they want to go to college, they should be able to. Even if they can't afford it IMHO. But I'm sure there are at least three folks here that would vote NO on that idea for various reasons.

However, even before hearing the reasons for NO. I'd say the reasons for YES far outweigh them in the long run. Having an Educated Populace is the KEY to a working Democracy IMHO. When only a third of the country has a college education, we have 3/4 of the country without one. Having an uneducated populace, in the "Information Age" is nothing short of institutionalized failure for our way of life and idea idea of Democracy IMHO. sad.gif

Still, whatever the reasons folks want to use, I still think students should have the option of getting a free college education from a decent state school. Not Harvard or such, just a decent state college that wouldn't put them in huge debt when they get out. We have over a trillion in student loan debt outstanding.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-growing-student-loan-debt-crisis-2016-01-15

As a result, we have a "skills gap" (e.g. jobs that don't have bodies to fill them as they lack the skills since they have no education/training in said skills) of several million jobs. We have folks with Masters degrees working at starbucks and folks without college educations falling in to the "Working Poor" category.

In a "Post Industial" age and economy, having an education isn't a luxury, it's a survival technique.

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 10 2016, 05:23 PM

There is no such thing as "Free College." Someone has to pay for it, and most of us feel there is already too much of our wealth that is being redistributed to others while those that are footing the bill to pay for the way of others are not being properly represented by their elected officials.
IMO and the opinion of a great number of Americans, the USA has already drifted too far towards Socialism and Communism and the course needs to be reversed, not accelerated.
We are not a Socialist State. We are a Democratic Republic, if we can keep it. And there are a great number of Americans who know that ours is the best form of Gov on the planet and we mean to keep it that way. And the opportunities for individual success in the USA are greater than anywhere else in the world.
There are other ways to make it easier for folks to get a college education without making citizens foot the bill for other citizens.
The Socialist dream of making everyone equal is just that, A dream. The only way to make everyone equal as far as wealth is concerned, is to make them equally poor.

Furthermore, taxpayer funded education would devalue a college degree and costs of tuitions to taxpayers would increase to levels higher than they already are due to increased demand. So whatever the price tag that is put on this kind of proposal is, you can most certainly double it at least.
Also when you don't have to pay for a service you are getting, folks tend to start to take these kinds of things for granted. I believe we would see a higher level of college dropouts than we do now which is already pretty high and this would result in a great deal of the taxpayers wealth being wasted.

I think I would rather keep that money in my own pocket to use for things that I need and want, thank you very much.

Posted by: fzalfa Dec 10 2016, 09:53 PM

really ??

surprizing !

here in france, it's free

Cheers

Laurent

Posted by: PosterBoy Dec 10 2016, 10:15 PM

Our colleges like our hospitals are non profit which makes it easier not to create huge student debts.

Posted by: GeneT95 Dec 11 2016, 12:41 AM

I don't know if I'd use the word 'college' A degree doesn't mean a good job like it used to. I agree in Education but, although a generalist degree may make a smarter population which will create changes in society, an Education in that manner simply isn't what it used to be.

It would be much better for someone to seek a technical degree or be trained in a useful skill for which they can find a livelihood doing than 'Go to College' to get a general degree or degree in a field that is filled with others. Unless of course, they ARE the upper 1% in that field AND they plan on doing research which will advance our understanding.

The problem with school debt is two fold. One goes to College and gets a degree that does not translate into a useful skill or job AND you're in debt because of the Education you pursued. Only part of that debt is related to cost. A large part is related to that education actually translating into useful employ or a job that actually pays a reasonable amount for which one can pay back their debt rather than a job that pays so little that there is no hope because either the jobs for that education are not valued or one must take any job that pays as their education is relatively meaningless.

There are two ideas here. Knowledge to increase the social competency of citizens and Knowledge so that they can feed, shelter, and love their families. We are failing the first question in middle and high school, not just higher education.

I'm not trying to be elitist here. My Grandparents were immigrant coal miners/farmers who left Europe after WW2 to find a new life. They toiled every day to feed, shelter, and cloth their families and, if by chance or some trueness, that somewhere down the line, someone would actually achieve a dream that was not possible for poor farmers and miners such as they. My grandfather was put in a boat at 12 with his 14 yo older brother, alone, without family, because it was a risk worth taking. I went to College because my father gave me no other choice and back then college meant something different with respect to employability in their minds and in reality. In all honestly, I am no smarter than those that came before me and education played a huge part in achieving the dream that my forebears labored to hard for. But, I do not think higher education is a key to stability, social competence, happiness, or feeding oneself. It only does that when ones' education is such that it moves directly and fluidly from study in a field in which employ is guaranteed. Seeking a general education or education in particular fields of study does not do this. I feel that if a free education were available to me when I was young, I may not have achieved what I did, as the cost and sacrifice incumbent in that endeavor made me choose to enter a field of study that guaranteed my employ if I survived it.

To respond to some of the above.

1. Democracy has made us equally poor, although I think socialist ideas would further that even more. Democracy is not what it used to be either. A ill-informed or mis-informed, less educated, entitled, and biased population can not make a good democracy either as we are easily manipulated to freely believe what others want us to believe. Were simply not as poor because we have a lot more than other countries. If we didn't, we wouldn't be what we are. We are no less controlled than any other population, we just freer to think we are not. Keeping us poorer eases the ability to manipulate as our needs can be played to. In reality, we don't really have a true choice in our government. We just get to choose between the choices offered. And the choices offered by our career politicians, special interest groups, and controlling entities have been in decline for some time. This is easily done with a sedentary less educated 'free' entitled society'.

2. I don't agree education should be free for a couple reasons. In order for it to be free, the government will ultimately have to control the cost. This will lead to 'public' institutions being 'free' but the education being dictated by cost. Professors will be only paid so much. Offered classes will be controlled by what a government committee thinks is appropriate. Number of enrollees to certain majors/career fields controlled. Etc. Public schools already suffer from government intervention thru the dictating of what is taught and how 'competency' is measured. Furthermore, Private colleges will still be for a Fee, but since there are Free options, there will be no reason to offer scholarships. This will increase the divide between the education offered at Free and Private institutions and those who can afford to attend. Higher education should not be free, but perhaps not so expensive, especially when a large part of the expense goes to non-academic endeavors and are passed down to the student body.

3. Lack of education in the computer age does not mean lack of social competency. We are socially incompetent because we'd rather not educate ourselves on the facts and ideas of a particular issue from multiple sources, inside and outside our spheres, as we rather selfishly believe what we want to believe or are manipulated or told to believe because we do not seek knowledge on our own. Spoon feeding is preferred. Preferably a diet we already favor.

4. The skills gap is for technical trades. Not general education I believe. Although I could be wrong. People don't want to do those jobs. They're hard.

5. There is a lot about health care that I wish were or was not. The dissolution of For Profit urgent care and Hospital care is one of them. When you make more money from what your doing, you do more than is neccessary to make more money, which makes what your doing so much more expensive.

I was in school until 28. It was an arduous journey that would have been exorbitantly expensive if I had not taken a scholarship that obligated me to national service. But I wouldn't change it nor, I think, would the miners and farmers that came before me. I had to pay for it every step, in one way or another.

I have two in college. I agree their possible debt is more than it should be even going to an 'In State' school although they could manage it given their respective career fields. But I do think it would be much harder for them if their demographic was different and possibly impossible. It would be equally painful if their study was General rather than focused and definitely not worth the cost.

I'm sure someone will have words for my words. Or at least I hope so. Discussion is education.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 11 2016, 02:26 AM

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 10 2016, 11:23 AM) *
And there are a great number of Americans who know that ours is the best form of Gov on the planet and we mean to keep it that way. And the opportunities for individual success in the USA are greater than anywhere else in the world.


Sounds more to me like there are a great number of Americans who have not seen much of the world, or gotten to know many people abroad.

QUOTE (PosterBoy @ Dec 10 2016, 04:15 PM) *
Our colleges like our hospitals are non profit which makes it easier not to create huge student debts.


Yeah, but you don't have the best form of government and the best opportunities in the world like I get to enjoy every day!

Todd, As we have a President coming in who never reads books, and who had a 39% voting margin among whites with only a high school education, I don't expect much emphasis on education in the near future.

I think things like this will get better about things like this, but only after those Americans who were foolish, the misguided but reachable ones, learn the hard way how they have fallen for a con job. I guess it may be for the best, the learning curve will be more acutely painful, but we will get past it quicker now.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 11 2016, 10:27 AM

Of course smile.gif Just in case it's not clear, I"m talking about FREE FOR THE STUDENTS.


I'm not saying college itself should magically be "free" and not create costs. Is that really what you got from reading what I wrote? Did you notice the part about freeing the students from debt? Thus, my thesis that college should be free and assertion that students shouldn't be burdened with college debt (even included a link about student debt) taken together, seem to suggest I'm talking about free to the students, no?

I don't remember suggesting communism? But, you like social security right? You like Highways? How about free education k-12? None of those things offend you? They are all a bit socialist to be honest. I"m just suggesting we go k-college instead of k-12. smile.gif Doing otherwise is to invite the decline of our country and way of life IMHO, we will be a Chinese Protectorate within two generations. Then you'll communism smile.gif Or something similar. But yeah, I pretty knew you'd be against free college. smile.gif

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 10 2016, 12:23 PM) *
There is no such thing as "Free College." Someone has to pay for it, and most of us feel there is already too much of our wealth that is being redistributed to others while those that are footing the bill to pay for the way of others are not being properly represented by their elected officials.
IMO a.much.


France is a pinch more Socialist Friendly than the states. Even though we have many programs that would be an easy fit in france like Social Security, Federal Pensions, etc. Folks like Rich and Millions of others as well, about half the country (The Trump Half) are against free tuition for college, but ok with free school k-12 smile.gif It's change that many folks just don't wanna hear about. Sorta like legalizing Marijuana about 10 years ago, it just was off the table. Now it's happening state by state. So give it time, I'm hoping we can learn a few things from France smile.gif

QUOTE (fzalfa @ Dec 10 2016, 04:53 PM) *
really ??

surprizing !

here in france, it's free

Cheers

Laurent


Sadly, you NAILED IT. You are probably right. Practically prophetic actually. Based on the vote, the votees and who got voted in, we are NOT likely to see free education beyond k-12 and given that our new appointee for education is someone who is "PRO PRIVATE" primary education, and Christian Private to be precise, we are likely to see a serious defunding of public schools across the board from Universities on down the line. I hope not. But I'd say it's ore likely than not given who is now in charge of it. It's kinda sad really. Strike that, it's very sad.

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 10 2016, 09:26 PM) *
Sounds more to me like there are a great number of Americans who have not seen much of the world, or gotten to know many people abroad.



Yeah, but you don't have the best form of government and the best opportunities in the world like I get to enjoy every day!

Todd, As we have a President coming in who never reads books, and who had a 39% voting margin among whites with only a high school education, I don't expect much emphasis on education in the near future.

I think things like this will get better about things like this, but only after those Americans who were foolish, the misguided but reachable ones, learn the hard way how they have fallen for a con job. I guess it may be for the best, the learning curve will be more acutely painful, but we will get past it quicker now.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 11 2016, 04:18 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 11 2016, 01:27 AM) *
Of course smile.gif Just in case it's not clear, I"m talking about FREE FOR THE STUDENTS.


I'm not saying college itself should magically be "free" and not create costs. Is that really what you got from reading what I wrote? Did you notice the part about freeing the students from debt? Thus, my thesis that college should be free and assertion that students shouldn't be burdened with college debt (even included a link about student debt) taken together, seem to suggest I'm talking about free to the students, no?

I don't remember suggesting communism? But, you like social security right? You like Highways? How about free education k-12? None of those things offend you? They are all a bit socialist to be honest. I"m just suggesting we go k-college instead of k-12. smile.gif Doing otherwise is to invite the decline of our country and way of life IMHO, we will be a Chinese Protectorate within two generations. Then you'll communism smile.gif Or something similar. But yeah, I pretty knew you'd be against free college. smile.gif


Then maybe you should have used the words "Taxpayer Funded" rather than "Free." Right?
I don't know if I like Social Security or not since I haven't collected it and may not be able to collect it if things keep going the way they are because in case you haven't noticed, that program is in deep trouble and I since I can't really rely on it, I have taken my own steps to insure that I have secured my retirement.

As for the Dept. of Education. As far as I can tell things have went downhill with public education since it was upgraded to a cabinet level status during the Carter admin. In fact every social program created by Gov is a failure or cost far more than it was supposed to.
Parents who homeschool their kids do a better job educating than the public school system as evidenced by homeschooled students consistently scoring higher than public school students in standardized testing. And they aren't indoctrinated with a leftist ideology.

What you propose is actually unconstitutional since there is no provision in the Constitution for it in the Enumerated Powers as defined in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8. The Dept. of Education itself is unconstitutional as well as defined in Article 1 section 8 and the 10th Amendment. The Federalist Papers are a good read as well. In particular and related to this topic Federalist Papers 41-45.

In case you haven't noticed. I am a Constitutional Conservative and I support only a limited Fed Gov as defined by our Constitution unless it is changed by a Convention of the States per Article 5.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Dec 11 2016, 04:59 PM

There is no such thing as free university. It just means that many people in Europe live thanks to their government stealing money from the rest of their citizens.
Also there is no such thing as "working democracy", democracy is just a prequel to socialism, and socialism is a prequel to communism. This is obvious since the times of Plato (just it was called tyranny, not the modern name).

Also in Europe there is way more graduates than needed in general, not to mention the fact that what the "market needs" is totally different than what people study and have a degree in. The situation is so pathetic, that most grown up man can't make a simple house repair themselves, and "as a very well educated and important person, with a degree in social science" need to call for a "smelly, uneducated plumber, to fix their WC". In Poland the situation is even funnier, because most "plumbers" already moved to Western Europe where even higher % of population is unable to do anything with their own hands, so in Poland "plumbers" often earn more money than people with a degree, because while no one really needs a social scientist, the society do need people who can do the "average work" well...

So I don't see how education is a survival thing, if you educate yourself in the wrong (without good prospects) direction, they your education is worthless (as long as we are talking about money/survival/etc.).

You either can do something that someone is willing to pay for, or you don't... Education isn't that much relevant.


Posted by: AK Rich Dec 11 2016, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 10 2016, 05:26 PM) *
Sounds more to me like there are a great number of Americans who have not seen much of the world, or gotten to know many people abroad.

Maybe so , but that doesn't change the facts as I have stated them.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 11 2016, 06:09 PM

And on to MUSIC! smile.gif I'd like to challenge everyone in this thread to take a stab at the SUNDAY CHALLENGE before the day ends. Midnight is the deadline so you've got 12 hours!! I"d like to get back to music. Sorry for posting about education. My bad. The only education I"m really interested in is Music Education, like we do here at GMC smile.gif To wit!!
----

!!! SUNDAY SHRED FEST X-31!!!!
The Rolling Stones "ish"

*I"m not playing in this vid. Instead, Instead, feel feel to use it to practice your lead! You can add it to a playlist on youtube if you like to keep track of it.
Direct Link to this Challenge :http://bit.ly/sundayshredfestx29http://bit.ly/sundayshredfestx29

Posted by: GeneT95 Dec 11 2016, 08:09 PM

Now I get Todd. This was a masterful ploy to get us all to enter the Sunday Shred Challenge.

Bravo. Bravo.

smile.gif


Posted by: klasaine Dec 12 2016, 04:07 AM

1) I don't believe that one needs to go to college/university to be successful.
2) I don't believe everyone should (regardless of the price) go to college. There are SO MANY folks floundering in college because they 'think' it's the only way to get ahead and are brainwashed into thinking that they must go to college when they'd be better off in technical school or apprenticing. We need hvac installers and repair people, auto mechanics, chefs, janitors, garbage men, locksmiths, city workers, etc.

Having said that, even state school is getting too expensive for many people and families.
One of the great things that college or university does, is expose you to different stuff, different ideas and different folks. It also teaches you to think (at least a little bit) critically.

Personally, I believe that cutting funding for public education and 'encouraging' private (and really fucking expensive) education is our government's and the ruling elite's long term plan to keep us stupid and effectively - sheep. Reagan started us down this road. I wonder if it was a grand plan?

As for best govt, best system, best whatever (in the US regardless of which administration) ... I don't know.
There's a lot good about this place. I love the States! I ain't goin' anywhere. But there are plenty of countries in the world that are, for all intents and purposes, free market democracies. Some of them are even a bit more 'democratic' in regard to some personal freedoms than ours. They're all a little different. The people are just as happy (or just as sad), just as free and have just as high a standard of living as us. Many of them have a longer life expectancy and overall healthier populous. Why do you think that is?
Travel. You'll find out. I mean that in a positive way. It's one of the best things you can do with your money. Go see some shit!

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 12 2016, 05:31 AM

BINGO!!! smile.gif Putting someone in charge of education, who despises public education. Hmm. Similar to putting someone in charge of the EPA who despises the EPA and has law suits against the EPA. Yup. Public education is going down. Just hide and watch.

QUOTE (klasaine @ Dec 11 2016, 11:07 PM) *
Personally, I believe that cutting funding for public education and 'encouraging' private (and really fucking expensive) education is our government's and the ruling elite's long term plan to keep us stupid and effectively - sheep. Reagan started us down this road. I wonder if it was a grand plan?



My plans laid bare!!! smile.gif

QUOTE (GeneT95 @ Dec 11 2016, 03:09 PM) *
Now I get Todd. This was a masterful ploy to get us all to enter the Sunday Shred Challenge.

Bravo. Bravo.

smile.gif


Posted by: AK Rich Dec 13 2016, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 11 2016, 01:27 AM) *
I don't remember suggesting communism?


Haven't you though? Is state run education not a primary and favorite tool of Communist Dictators? Think it through and be careful what you wish for.
Which is more like China or N Korea? A country with private education, or a country where the Gov controls education?

Don't get me wrong though. I understand your concern. I just think there must be a better solution to the problem, one that doesn't have the capacity to go horribly wrong.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 13 2016, 05:38 PM

Most of the western (and a lot of the free eastern) world has 'state' funded and/or very affordable high level education and has for decades. Very little of the western world is communist. *North Korea, the DPRK is the only 'actual' communist country left in the world. China has a huge free market and Cuba has a small free market.

The scientists and dreamers in this country that WON the space race and then invented not only super computers but the modern personal computer (and by extension dawned 'the computer age') had affordable or free higher education. Many of them went to state school. Many of them had only one parent in the household that worked but who were still able to afford a higher education for their kids. Or, like me, college only cost between $300 and $1000 a semester - books and parking included. And I went to a very good 'state' school (CSUN). I paid for some of it by working a part time job (teaching guitar lessons and gigging) and my parents also paid for some of it. My brother - same thing.

One of the reasons we import many workers from abroad is that most of the time they are more qualified than their American counterparts. And I'm not just talking about 'cheap' labor or lower paid than their US counterparts positions. I'm talking about high paid work in the medical, technical, engineering, architectural, computer science, high-end manufacturing, research and even specialized teaching positions that Americans are becoming less and less qualified to do. Here in So. Cal. there are a ton of research positions as well as high tech and high tech design positions going to Italians, French, Spanish, English, Aussie's and Asians because their American counterparts aren't qualified enough - because they can't fucking afford school. These positions filled by foreigners are NOT lower paid because 1) they have to sponsor visas, 2) the cost of living is very high here and 3) they generally pay moving/re-settlement costs.
It would be WAY easier to hire a local. There's so much less bullshit involved. But if the locals can't cut the gig then you gotta look elsewhere ... and there's no shortage of 'elsewhere'.

In the interest of 'full disclosure', my wife, a green carded but still Italian citizen, took a full-time position away from an American (several americans) ... because she is way more qualified for the position - language professor at a local city college. She received two separate master's degrees from two different 'public' universities in Italy. It probably cost her the equivalent of $500 a year for 6 years. Totally affordable.

America wants to compete and not 'lose' jobs to foreigners. Well, America has to compete at the same level. Give more folks a fighting chance at a higher, quality education.
Come on, make America great again. Make 'em fucking smart again.

Posted by: Rammikin Dec 13 2016, 06:44 PM

The Greatest Generation accomplished some awesome things after WWII in the US. We look back with envy at those accomplishments. Well, that generation had a huge number of people whose college education was funded by the government via the G.I. bill. Please refresh my memory, but I don't recall that leading to a revolution of the proletariat. What it *did* lead to was a period of technological leadership and unparalleled prosperity.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 13 2016, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Dec 13 2016, 10:44 AM) *
I don't recall that leading to a revolution of the proletariat. What it *did* lead to was a period of technological leadership and unparalleled prosperity.


Yes, and lets all refresh our memories as to what types of governments arose when the down trodden, unable or not allowed to go to college (or technical school) and working poor did 'revolt' - Bolshevik (Russia) in 1917 and the Chinese revolution led by Mao in 1949.



Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 14 2016, 04:33 AM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 9 2016, 09:09 PM) *
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/08/rick-santorum/70-americans-dont-have-college-degree-rick-santoru/

I really hope that in 2017, we can get our numbers up a bit. Especially in education. My fondest wish is that everyone can go to school and get an education and not be burdened by crippling debt afterward. In Europe, many countries have FREE College I think American students should have that option as well. If they want to go to college, they should be able to. Even if they can't afford it IMHO. But I'm sure there are at least three folks here that would vote NO on that idea for various reasons.

However, even before hearing the reasons for NO. I'd say the reasons for YES far outweigh them in the long run. Having an Educated Populace is the KEY to a working Democracy IMHO. When only a third of the country has a college education, we have 3/4 of the country without one. Having an uneducated populace, in the "Information Age" is nothing short of institutionalized failure for our way of life and idea idea of Democracy IMHO. sad.gif

Still, whatever the reasons folks want to use, I still think students should have the option of getting a free college education from a decent state school. Not Harvard or such, just a decent state college that wouldn't put them in huge debt when they get out. We have over a trillion in student loan debt outstanding.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-growing-student-loan-debt-crisis-2016-01-15

As a result, we have a "skills gap" (e.g. jobs that don't have bodies to fill them as they lack the skills since they have no education/training in said skills) of several million jobs. We have folks with Masters degrees working at starbucks and folks without college educations falling in to the "Working Poor" category.

In a "Post Industial" age and economy, having an education isn't a luxury, it's a survival technique.

Todd

I just don't understand your libertarian-ism here.How can you be for liberty, yet , by force of a gun ,take away my liberty by coming into my house and taking my money and giving it to someone else, whom you deem deserving , who didn't earn it .

Posted by: fkalich Dec 14 2016, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 13 2016, 10:33 PM) *
I just don't understand your libertarian-ism here.How can you be for liberty, yet , by force of a gun ,take away my liberty by coming into my house and taking my money and giving it to someone else, whom you deem deserving , who didn't earn it .


Assuming you are not one of the 1/1000, I don't think it is your door we are primarily looking to knock on.

Do you pay for your own health insurance, as I have always paid? If you have an employer paying for it, you are are recipient of the largest tax subsidy on the books, it amounts to more money than even the mortgage interest deduction. People with decently paid jobs are the ones who get the IRS tax exemption because they get part of their pay in health insurance benefits. Walmart and Go Chicken Go employees miss out on that federal tax subsidy.

Take higher education. At a University you primarily you have kids going to school who had parents with reasonably high incomes, much fewer that came from hardship backgrounds. So who benefits mostly by the tax money spent to support state Universities? The middle and upper economic classes for the most part.

I can look around my middle class neighborhood, all the improvements constantly made, the upkeep on the neighborhood. How much money gets spent there on civic improvements for the people living in the poor sections of the city?

The more money you have, the more financial benefits you get in the form of government subsidies, people just don't realize it, and they complain about what they think that others on the lower economic ladder are getting from the government, when in fact they are themselves getting much more in subsidies than those people they complain about.

Another example, a small significant one, voting access. How long did I wait in line to vote in my neighborhood, in a county with high average incomes that significantly favored Trump? I was in and out in 10 minutes. The average wait time for Black voters (according to PEW) to vote is twice that of average white voters. Republican state legislatures have engineered a number of blocks to make it difficult for Blacks to vote, Blacks who on average earn only 60% of what Whites earn in incomes.

And one final example, a big one, Donald Trump being the poster boy for this one. Here is a man who has used the welfare system to the max, declaring bankruptcy many times, and always coming out the wealthier for it. If you want to talk about welfare abuse, you don't find a better example of anyone who has exploited the government for everything he could get, building a financial empire on $850 million in tax breaks. The really big welfare recipients are not poor Blacks in the inner city, they are people like Donald J. Trump.


Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 14 2016, 01:24 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 14 2016, 06:24 AM) *
Assuming you are not one of the 1/1000, I don't think it is your door we are primarily looking to knock on.

Do you pay for your own health insurance, as I have always paid? If you have an employer paying for it, you are are recipient of the largest tax subsidy on the books, it amounts to more money than even the mortgage interest deduction. People with decently paid jobs are the ones who get the IRS tax exemption because they get part of their pay in health insurance benefits. Walmart and Go Chicken Go employees miss out on that federal tax subsidy.

Take higher education. At a University you primarily you have kids going to school who had parents with reasonably high incomes, much fewer that came from hardship backgrounds. So who benefits mostly by the tax money spent to support state Universities? The middle and upper economic classes for the most part.

I can look around my middle class neighborhood, all the improvements constantly made, the upkeep on the neighborhood. How much money gets spent there on civic improvements for the people living in the poor sections of the city?

The more money you have, the more financial benefits you get in the form of government subsidies, people just don't realize it, and they complain about what they think that others on the lower economic ladder are getting from the government, when in fact they are themselves getting much more in subsidies than those people they complain about.

Another example, a small significant one, voting access. How long did I wait in line to vote in my neighborhood, in a county with high average incomes that significantly favored Trump? I was in and out in 10 minutes. The average wait time for Black voters (according to PEW) to vote is twice that of average white voters. Republican state legislatures have engineered a number of blocks to make it difficult for Blacks to vote, Blacks who on average earn only 60% of what Whites earn in incomes.

And one final example, a big one, Donald Trump being the poster boy for this one. Here is a man who has used the welfare system to the max, declaring bankruptcy many times, and always coming out the wealthier for it. If you want to talk about welfare abuse, you don't find a better example of anyone who has exploited the government for everything he could get, building a financial empire on $850 million in tax breaks. The really big welfare recipients are not poor Blacks in the inner city, they are people like Donald J. Trump.


I'll answer this later , got to go to work , none of this however justified taking away my or anyone else's liberty, and I am the employer that pays for health care

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 14 2016, 03:36 PM

We already have a STATE RUN education system in this Country rich smile.gif . It's called PUBLIC K-12 and EVERY publicly funded University in the United States. These are state run educational systems. So we already have that. We have had it for quite some time. smile.gif But who knows, maybe it's all a BIG Communist plot! ohmy.gif Could be? Right? cool.gif Tin foil hats help according to some folks, and our govt is commie and or run by lizards according to others so I get lost sometimes. I'm ok with COMMIE LIZARD PINKOS running it though mad.gif

Given the new gal in charge of the dept of education, I'd say we are gonna be heading toward your view of things very soon. Vouchers for Homeschool/Christian programs, the defunding of everything else. Yup smile.gif Utopia here we come!!


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 13 2016, 12:10 PM) *
Haven't you though? Is state run education not a primary and favorite tool of Communist Dictators? Think it through and be careful what you wish for.
Which is more like China or N Korea? A country with private education, or a country where the Gov controls education?

Don't get me wrong though. I understand your concern. I just think there must be a better solution to the problem, one that doesn't have the capacity to go horribly wrong.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 15 2016, 04:35 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 14 2016, 06:36 AM) *
We already have a STATE RUN education system in this Country rich smile.gif . It's called PUBLIC K-12 and EVERY publicly funded University in the United States. These are state run educational systems. So we already have that. We have had it for quite some time. smile.gif But who knows, maybe it's all a BIG Communist plot! ohmy.gif Could be? Right? cool.gif Tin foil hats help according to some folks, and our govt is commie and or run by lizards according to others so I get lost sometimes. I'm ok with COMMIE LIZARD PINKOS running it though mad.gif

Given the new gal in charge of the dept of education, I'd say we are gonna be heading toward your view of things very soon. Vouchers for Homeschool/Christian programs, the defunding of everything else. Yup smile.gif Utopia here we come!!


Exactly! That's the problem. Public education does a better job at grooming students to be leftist drones that are led to believe that the world owes them something or everything in some cases than it does at actually educating young people. Sorry but I don't think it is a good idea for Gov to run indoctrination in the guise of education and decide what should be taught and what shouldn't be. It is a legitimate argument, so you know what you can do with all your tin foil hat comment BS and try to discuss things like an adult.
I am sorry that you cannot see, or casually dismiss the potential problems with Gov. in control of knowledge and information.

Ken mentioned that Cuba and China have what he calls a free market. But how free are those markets really in those countries or any country in the Western World including our own country when you look at the level of taxation, regulation and the picking of winners and losers by Gov in those markets? Are they really Free Markets or just an illusion?

The answer to better educating our kids is not more Gov. Every time we let the Gov take more and more control and continue to expand we lose more and more of our liberties.

This simple truth cannot be denied. The bigger the Gov, the smaller the citizen.

Of course , pure Communism is all but dead, but to continue to move in this direction is to continue to move in the direction of tyranny and some form of totalitarian Gov. and some would say that we are already under a form of soft tyranny where folks are bullied or shamed into falling in line. And if we are to see a totalitarian Gov in this country you can be sure that it will be the left that takes us there.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 15 2016, 05:21 PM

When 'public' education was at it's peak (post WWII to the early 80s), and many private colleges being relatively affordable in relation to normal/average full-time salaries in this country, the USA was the most technologically advanced, undeniably the strongest (most feared if you wish) and the most forward thinking and facing nation that has ever graced the planet.

However you want to quantify it ... moon launches, Stealth bombers, lap top computers, CGI, night vision goggles, AI, VR, GMOs (pro or con, whatever), Vaccines, NASA, the space station(s), digital modeling, the internet - christ, the list is endless. All the folks that worked on this stuff generally went to public schools. Both high school and college.

By the way, 'private' institutions can be far more liberal than their public counterparts - both secondary school and college.
Also, the more liberal or progressive or at least perceived as liberal/progressive institutions (public and private) are where a majority of high paying companies, firms, hospitals, high-tech research (silicon valley) and hitech manufacturing companies, etc. recruit for hiring. They like, want and require a more well rounded and even skeptical/freer/more open mind.
College is where you're supposed to be exposed to shit that makes you uncomfortable. It prepares you for actual 'life'. *I'm as comfortable with extreme/alt student groups on campus as I am with the LGBT and Muslim student groups.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 15 2016, 10:55 PM

Easy there smile.gif Just adding a little humor in to what is quickly become a very not fun thread. Some folks do indeed think the govt is controlled by lizards as I recently discovered. Some folks think the earth is in fact flat. Folks think all kinds of things. "leftist Indoctrination" aside, everyone has their right to their own views on everything. Which is sorta the point smile.gif If folks want more or less of this or that, we can always vote in folks promising more or less. Then vote in their replacements in the next round. So the wheel turns.

The "Rightist Indoctrination" process is alive and well to complement the "leftist indoctrination" in the states despite our communist sympathizing public education system. The rightist indoctrination is more commerce based though, via ad based/subscription/donation based sites like INFO WARS and such. Which is fine as well. Takes all kinds to fill up the bus and pay their taxes, etc. Even takes full blown nut jobs, which we have plenty of as well. They have every right to be nut jobs, as long as they pay taxes imho smile.gif

Anhoo! Hopefully back to music.


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dehicc 15 2016, 11:35 AM) *
Exactly! That's the problem. Public education does a better job at grooming students to be leftist drones that are led to believe that the world owes them something or everything in some cases than it d.an Gov in this country you can be sure that it will be the left that takes us there.


Here's to hoping our colleges and universities can keep trying to support thinking/skeptical/questioning minds. Or as a few folks would call them, "Lefties", some how progressive thought has been branded by "The Right" as a bad thing. I fear the new gal in charge of our entire education system is going to spend several years taking it apart. I hope what's left is functional. But we shall see smile.gif I hope what's left of the EPA (a climate denier appointed to run it, who is currently in a lawsuit against the EPA Environmental Protection Agency) and the govt/country in general is still functional as well. But again, have to wait and see. Looks bad before it starts, but hoping for the best as we have no other choice but to hope for the best at this point smile.gif

QUOTE (klasaine @ Dec 15 2016, 12:21 PM) *
When 'public' education was at it's peak (post WWII to the early 80s), and many private colleges being relatively affordable in relation to normal/average full-time salaries in this country, the USA was th.....omfortable with extreme/alt student groups on campus as I am with the LGBT and Muslim student groups.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 16 2016, 12:56 AM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 15 2016, 10:55 PM) *
Easy there smile.gif Just adding a little humor in to what is quickly become a very not fun thread.ho smile.gif

did you really think this thread was going to turn into something different ?

as with all these threads . our question is always name one thing that the government doesnt screw up once it gets its hands on it. This has yet to be answered . How did we ever get so good before the government ( at a federal level ) took over . We are just sayin , lets go back to that

Posted by: Rammikin Dec 16 2016, 01:36 AM

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 15 2016, 03:35 PM) *
Public education does a better job at grooming students to be leftist drones that are led to believe that the world owes them something


FWIW, I think more americans would embrace the self-reliance message of the right if it wasn't so often accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric about commies under your bed and in your schools.

The fact is public higher education is one of things the federal government has done right in this country and, for all its shortcomings, is the envy of much of the world. That's why so many nations send their young people to our publicly funded colleges and universities to be educated.

All Todd is saying is: it would nice if more of the benefits of that excellent educational system stayed here in this country.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 16 2016, 09:26 AM

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Dec 15 2016, 07:36 PM) *
FWIW, I think more americans would embrace the self-reliance message of the right if it wasn't so often accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric about commies under your bed and in your schools.

The fact is public higher education is one of things the federal government has done right in this country and, for all its shortcomings, is the envy of much of the world. That's why so many nations send their young people to our publicly funded colleges and universities to be educated.

All Todd is saying is: it would nice if more of the benefits of that excellent educational system stayed here in this country.


I have an older brother. He went to college after high school, but actually failed, had a mental breakdown in fact. But he got past that, and became a laborer, working in a meat packing house. He got married, had a couple kids, but when he was in his late 20's went back to school, finished his undergrad with straight A's. He clearly impressed someone at Harvard Law School, because they accepted him and he did graduate from Harvard Law, and had as you might expect had decent a career. He would describe his political slant as somewhat left of Bernie Sanders.

My little Brother was always a good student, he went to Georgetown. Ended up as general manager for a newspaper in the South. He gets a lot of insulting responses from readers for his liberal views expressed in editorials.

Myself, I worked in labor for 5 years going to night school at a local college, then I first got a Masters in Economics, then worked in a bank getting an MBA at night at the University of Missouri as Kansas City, eventually was assistant to the CFO of the bank. I changed careers, went back to school, got a Masters in Computer Science, and worked with a group of Chinese people in software development, under subcontract to NASA. My political views would be about square on Bernie Sanders. Although I would say most of my education comes from reading books, not formal education.

I have one more brother, actually he was the most intelligent of us, but he had health issues so he had a modest career. But he did get a Masters Degree in History. He has always been anti-Democratic Party for the Abortion issue, being a dyed in the wool Catholic. But even he would not vote for Trump, he wrote in somebody else. All 6 of his children have degrees from either Ivy League Schools, or equivalents.

Or even my college roommate. He started off right, from a small town in Kansas, his father working class, he had all the potential to see things as clearly as Trump supporters do. But he went to college, had an internship with NASA, ended up designing the latest and greatest in fighter jets. He got his Masters in Engineering, but he always took courses to broaden himself, and was a serious reader. He is even a member of Mensa. And he is even more liberal than I am!

My question is, why are we all so stupid, what has make us such mindless liberals, where did we go wrong? I know of only one person related to me that voted for Trump, she has a Masters degree but the Catholics convinced her she would go to hell if she didn't. What is wrong with all of us, is he right, has all the education, the hundreds of books we have read since then, turned our brains into silly putty? I guess so. Maybe if I have a frontal lobotomy, and follow that up with a few hundred hours of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (neither a college graduate b.t.w.), I might recover. Think so?

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Dec 16 2016, 09:50 AM

USA was the "most technological advanced" country in the 80'ties, because half of the globe had even more socialism, "free education", "free vacation", "free everything" and that made half of the globe the garbage it still is. USA was better not because of having some socialism, but because it had less socialism than their opponents.

It is quite simple process:

1. you install socialism in one part of a territory and something else in the other part of the territory
2. socialism totally wrecks the economy of its territory so:
- skilled people escape from it and are cheap to exploit by the other territory
- you can buy resources cheap from the socialist territory and sell them your technology for a good price to them
3. your territory has a huge external income and you use it to build an illusion for your citizens that they will always be so rich, can take debts/spend so much money on luxury goods/travel/etc.
4. they lose their wealth, their savings and houses and become slaves to the banks in few generations.

Capitalists lose, socialists lose, banks win.


Posted by: fkalich Dec 16 2016, 11:47 AM

QUOTE (Marek Rojewski @ Dec 16 2016, 03:50 AM) *
USA was the "most technological advanced" country in the 80'ties, because half of the globe had even more socialism, "free education", "free vacation", "free everything" and that made half of the globe the garbage it still is. USA was better not because of having some socialism, but because it had less socialism than their opponents.

It is quite simple process:

1. you install socialism in one part of a territory and something else in the other part of the territory
2. socialism totally wrecks the economy of its territory so:
- skilled people escape from it and are cheap to exploit by the other territory
- you can buy resources cheap from the socialist territory and sell them your technology for a good price to them
3. your territory has a huge external income and you use it to build an illusion for your citizens that they will always be so rich, can take debts/spend so much money on luxury goods/travel/etc.
4. they lose their wealth, their savings and houses and become slaves to the banks in few generations.

Capitalists lose, socialists lose, banks win.


Socialist, Capitalist, those are just words, and over simplifications. You analysis is interesting, obviously you are well educated, I have read what you wrote carefully, it is not easy to understand, and it makes a lot of sense, and certainly is a model to consider.

However I think you are leaving something out, something that was implicit with the experience of Eastern Europe. You had the USSR that for all practical purposes called the shots, and the culture it had, which in many ways still had commonality with the time of the Tsar.Just because mismanagement and corruption impeded past efforts does not mean the goals are not still obtainable.

The problem is that there is such a disparity of wealth and income in society, and it is getting worse. It is not that we should not have opportunities for people to have higher standards of living than the average person, that is all fine and good. But what we have goes way beyond that, the disparities in wealth and income are to drastic.

How to solve this, a big big problem with no easy or clear solution. But it is a time bomb that is going to go off, it is just a matter of time before enough people in the world get desperate enough that the fuse is lit. Things have got to change, one way or another, and I am absolutely certain that Donald J. Trump is not an answer, he is an anti-answer.


Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 16 2016, 03:08 PM

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Dec 16 2016, 01:36 AM) *
FWIW, I think more americans would embrace the self-reliance message of the right if it wasn't so often accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric about commies under your bed and in your schools.

The fact is public higher education is one of things the federal government has done right in this country and, for all its shortcomings, is the envy of much of the world. That's why so many nations send their young people to our publicly funded colleges and universities to be educated.

All Todd is saying is: it would nice if more of the benefits of that excellent educational system stayed here in this country.

then should we not just return to what we were doing

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 16 2016, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Dec 15 2016, 04:36 PM) *
FWIW, I think more americans would embrace the self-reliance message of the right if it wasn't so often accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric about commies under your bed and in your schools.

The fact is public higher education is one of things the federal government has done right in this country and, for all its shortcomings, is the envy of much of the world. That's why so many nations send their young people to our publicly funded colleges and universities to be educated.

All Todd is saying is: it would nice if more of the benefits of that excellent educational system stayed here in this country.


Folks with a Marxist ideology don't hide under the bed anymore. Now they are members of Congress. and run for President, and even win. wink.gif

http://www.cpusa.org/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 16 2016, 08:32 PM

Oh I get it smile.gif Between yourself and rich and spock I think the Govt has folks passionate about keeping it as small as possible. But if your question is "NAME SOMETHING THE GOVT HAS MAD BETTER", I'd say that's an easy one.

PUBLIC HEALTH

In countries all over the world WITHOUT a strong Federal Govt. You have very low standards of public health. We have several FEDERAL agencies in place, just to keep our standard of public health, quite high. One of these highest among developed nations.

So if that's the question, there's your answer smile.gif Sadly, the new administration seems bent on "making govt smaller" just as you describe and is thus placing folks at the heads of various agencies who despise those agencies and want to dismantle them. We are going to get a front row seat to see just what impacts a "smaller govt" is going to have. So here goes with the big experiment smile.gif


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 15 2016, 07:56 PM) *
did you really think this thread was going to turn into something different ?

as with all these threads . our question is always name one thing that the government doesnt screw up once it gets its hands on it. This has yet to be answered . How did we ever get so good before the government ( at a federal level ) took over . We are just sayin , lets go back to that


It would be nice wouldn't' it smile.gif Sadly, folks often come here to get an education, and then either leave to go back to their home country because they are forced to (immigration laws) or because they find better chances elsewhere.

I'd also like to see the benefits of our higher education system made available to anyone who wants an education, regardless of their ability to pay for it. If they are a good student, with good grades, an education should be available to them imho. The student loan program certainly helps, as do progams like HOPE in ga which uses lottery funds. I'd support using more lottery funds to lighten the loan burden and legalizing and taxing various vices in order to provide a new revenue base to help more folks get an education, even if they couldn't otherwise afford it.

Todd

QUOTE (Rammikin @ Dec 15 2016, 08:36 PM) *
FWIW, I think more americans would embrace the self-reliance message of the right if it wasn't so often accompanied by over-the-top rhetoric about commies under your bed and in your schools.

The fact is public higher education is one of things the federal government has done right in this country and, for all its shortcomings, is the envy of much of the world. That's why so many nations send their young people to our publicly funded colleges and universities to be educated.

All Todd is saying is: it would nice if more of the benefits of that excellent educational system stayed here in this country.


YUP!! Go sign up over at INFOWARS.com and then listen to RUSH LIMAUGH every single day. Then sign up at Brietbarf and Drudge Report, and watch lots of FAUX, sorry, FOX news, and then BAM you'll get re-edumacated in Trumpism and get right!!!!! Smaller Govt!! Trickle Down Economics!!! Banned Abortion!! The entire ticket will make sense smile.gif

Todd

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 16 2016, 04:26 AM) *
..sh Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (neither a college graduate b.t.w.), I might recover. Think so?


They didn't win much this time around to be sure. Not the Presidency by far, not congress, not the senate, not the local elections. Pretty much nothing. So what are you talking about? We have a Majority REPUBLICAN house and senate and POTUS. Where are all the commnists winning congressional seats and presidencies? Eh? Double eh?


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 16 2016, 11:25 AM) *
Folks with a Marxist ideology don't hide under the bed anymore. Now they are members of Congress. and run for President, and even win. wink.gif

http://www.cpusa.org/


WELL SAID! smile.gif This is the time bomb that is going to end up in violence IMHO. It's bad now, it's going to get much, much, much worse over the next four years as rich folks are gonna do really well and the rest of use are pretty much gonna get the shaft. So it's gonna reach a head within a few years and then BOOM very bad things are gonna happen IMHO.

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 16 2016, 06:47 AM) *
Socialist, Capitalist, those are just words, and over simplifications. You analysis is interesting, obviously you are well educated, I have read what you wrote carefully, it is not easy to understand, a..


Here is an info graphic that is certain to get a healthy response I"m sure. It points out the RIGHTISTS propaganda and LEFTIST propaganda and shows REUTERS and a couple of other sources in the middle. Notice that CNN has a note (Better than not reading news at all) So if you are getting your info from the bits on the right or left of the graph, you are getting lost in the ECHO CHAMBER imho. Your mileage may vary smile.gif Doesn't really change it though. If you subscribe to info wars on the right or natural news on the left, you are stuck in the info vacuum.


Posted by: klasaine Dec 16 2016, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 16 2016, 12:32 PM) *
Where are all the communists winning congressional seats and presidencies? Eh? Double eh?


In Cali! wink.gif

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 16 2016, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 16 2016, 08:32 PM) *
Oh I get it smile.gif Between yourself and rich and spock I think the Govt has folks passionate about keeping it as small as possible. But if your question is "NAME SOMETHING THE GOVT HAS MAD BETTER", I'd say that's an easy one.

PUBLIC HEALTH

In countries all over the world WITHOUT a strong Federal Govt. You have very low standards of public health. We have several FEDERAL agencies in place, just to keep our standard of public health, quite high. One of these highest among developed nations.

So if that's the question, there's your answer smile.gif Sadly, the new administration seems bent on "making govt smaller" just as you describe and is thus placing folks at the heads of various agencies who despise those agencies and want to dismantle them. We are going to get a front row seat to see just what impacts a "smaller govt" is going to have. So here goes with the big experiment smile.gif

private hospitals , based on evil profit, are responsible for our health .The gov. can only try to have standards , its up to private citizens to do the real work to make it work
Look at the VA , thats what government does

and before when we were arguing about Obamacare , you clearly stated how behind we were for a first world nation , now all of a sudden its wonderful health care system.

and here we do go with this experiment . I am willing to let you say" i told you you so " if it doesn't work , are you man enough to admit if it works

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 17 2016, 04:55 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 16 2016, 11:32 AM) *
They didn't win much this time around to be sure. Not the Presidency by far, not congress, not the senate, not the local elections. Pretty much nothing. So what are you talking about? We have a Majority REPUBLICAN house and senate and POTUS. Where are all the commnists winning congressional seats and presidencies? Eh? Double eh?


Thank God. We still have a short wait until we can watch the current Marxist in Chief walk out of the WH. Hopefully the door will hit him in the ass on the way out.

Yep, Dems only control Governorships and Legislatures in 4 out of 50 states now. That should send a clear message that Marxist inspired politics is not what the country wants. The left didn't just lose, they were decimated. They tried as hard as they could during the last 8 years to destroy the Republican party and cast Conservatives as Racist and every other kind of boogeyman they could think of and it was all a total backfire.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 17 2016, 08:50 PM

I said PUBLIC HEALTH I said nothing about obmamacare. Separate subject but related. You asked what's better, public health is the answer. The EPA, Food and Drug Administration, etc. FEDERAL AGENCIES all focused on the goal of public health. So yeah, there ya go. smile.gif Question answered. Here is a ink with more info on what Public Health is and what the term covers.

http://apha.org/publications-and-periodicals/published-books


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 16 2016, 05:58 PM) *
private hospitals , based on evil profit, are responsible for our health .The gov. can only try to have standards , its up to private citizens to do the real work to make it work
Look at the VA , thats what government does

and before when we were arguing about Obamacare , you clearly stated how behind we were for a first world nation , now all of a sudden its wonderful health care system.

and here we do go with this experiment . I am willing to let you say" i told you you so " if it doesn't work , are you man enough to admit if it works


Now that Putins pet dog (Trump) is in charge, we are closer to communist and authoritarian control than ever. The lack of balance in the current govt. (e.g. no democrats to be found in any significan number) removes the checks and balances that keep the govt from being authoritarian. For some one so fond of liberty, you just gave it up to trusting in the federal govt. The right wing govt to be exact. So it's not up to you anymore, at all. You've voted away your freedom. The inmates are in charge of the asylum so the future looks pretty darn awful. Hoping for the best, but prepping for the worst.

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 17 2016, 11:55 AM) *
Thank God. We still have a short wait until we can watch the current Marxist in Chief walk out of the WH. Hopefully the door will hit him in the ass on the way out.

Yep, Dems only control Governorships and Legislatures in 4 out of 50 states now. That should send a clear message that Marxist inspired politics is not what the country wants. The left didn't just lose, they were decimated. They tried as hard as they could during the last 8 years to destroy the Republican party and cast Conservatives as Racist and every other kind of boogeyman they could think of and it was all a total backfire.


ANYHOO!!!! Enough about our country being run by an autocrat, it's almost time for the SHRED FEST CHALLENGE!!!! The new one will be up on Sunday so you still have time today and Sunday to submit a take if you can!!! smile.gif here is the link.

http://%20http://bit.ly/sundayshredfestx32

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 18 2016, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 17 2016, 11:50 AM) *
Now that Putins pet dog (Trump) is in charge, we are closer to communist and authoritarian control than ever. The lack of balance in the current govt. (e.g. no democrats to be found in any significan number) removes the checks and balances that keep the govt from being authoritarian. For some one so fond of liberty, you just gave it up to trusting in the federal govt. The right wing govt to be exact. So it's not up to you anymore, at all. You've voted away your freedom. The inmates are in charge of the asylum so the future looks pretty darn awful. Hoping for the best, but prepping for the worst.


You must be joking? Exactly what liberties have I lost and exactly how have I lost them? And how exactly, have I voted away my freedom? Please be specific.

An autocrat? Seriously? Good grief.

You can thank Democrats for the results of this election and primarily, you can thank Obama. They shot themselves in the foot because baby steps to the left weren't enough for them. They just had to try that giant leap.

If Trump is Putins lapdog. Then was Obama the lapdog of all the foreign donors that contributed to his campaign?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 19 2016, 04:30 AM

hide and watch smile.gif Trump is gonna make his rich buddies richer. I just saw a speech where Trump backed off his bit promise of "lock her up" on Hillary. Now he says, "we won the election, who cares". It was all just campaign trail fodder that desperate folks lapped up. It's due to the lack of checks and balances, due to the overweight of republican power, that we face authoritarian control. There is just nothing to stop it. So here it comes. If you though it was bad before, get ready. It's gonna get way, way worse. Just give it time.

Anyhoo I've said my bit smile.gif also, don't forget to check that last info graph. If you or anyone is getting their news from the bits on the far right or left (the "Garbage" news. Then you are just being manipulated). Reuters and the Associated Press are about as close as you are going to get to actual Journalism these days. Outside of that, it's mostly echo chamber. If you listen to druge/brietbarf/faux news, or MSNBC/mother jones on the other side, you are stuck in the echo chamber. Don't get stuck folks.

I'll let rich/crsn have the last word smile.gif Enjoy it!

BTW: There is a new SUNDAY SHRED CHALLENGE!! E BLUES Pink Floyd TIME: Have fun with it!

!!! SUNDAY SHRED FEST X-33!!!!
TIME : By Pink Floyd

*I"m not playing in this vid. Instead, Instead, feel feel to use it to practice your lead! You can add it to a playlist on youtube if you like to keep track of it.
Direct Link to this Challenge :http://bit.ly/sundayshredfestx29http://bit.ly/sundayshredfestx33

Todd


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Dec 18 2016, 12:00 PM) *
You must be joking? Exactly what liberties have I lost and exactly how have I lost them? And how exactly, have I voted away my freedom? Please be specific.

An autocrat? Seriously? Good grief.

You can thank Democrats for the results of this election and primarily, you can thank Obama. They shot themselves in the foot because baby steps to the left weren't enough for them. They just had to try that giant leap.

If Trump is Putins lapdog. Then was Obama the lapdog of all the foreign donors that contributed to his campaign?

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 21 2016, 04:23 AM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 19 2016, 04:30 AM) *
hide and watch smile.gif Trump is gonna make his rich buddies richer. I just saw a speech where Trump backed off his bit promise of "lock her up" on Hillary. Now he says, "we won the election, who cares". It was all just campaign trail fodder that desperate folks lapped up. It's due to the lack of checks and balances, due to the overweight of republican power, that we face authoritarian control. There is just nothing to stop it. So here it comes. If you though it was bad before, get ready. It's gonna get way, way worse. Just give it time.


Todd

are you telling me that a business man is going to( as president )make policy that will help businesses make more money, Thanks for clearing that up.

while we are on it could it be that college registration is down due to lack of jobs and /or college degrees that are useless. Out of the last 24 years a democrat has been president for 16 of those. and since the mid 90's college professors lean democrat 14 to 1 also a great video why it is important to have these discussions without silencing opinions contrary to your own



You said watch and see , are you open minded enough to acknowledge anything that works m?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Dec 21 2016, 04:47 PM

To both sides of the fence: any political discussion at GMC needs to be handled cautiously.

This is not the right place to throw in disguised provocations. If any of you are just looking to vent your anger, you can easily find other places for that. So in other words factual, and constructive discussions are what we encourage.

These discussions serve the purpose of explaining your perspective, and understanding your fellow GMC'ers perspective. If you participate in this thread for any other reason - I ask you to refrain from posting.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM

I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post motivated me otherwise smile.gif Well said!!!!!! smile.gif Hopefully the forum can be a place to talk politics without venting, without provocation, hopefully without wads of questionable vids as well, mostly focused on genuine discussion.

Todd

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 21 2016, 11:47 AM) *
To both sides of the fence: any political discussion at GMC needs to be handled cautiously.

This is not the right place to throw in disguised provocations. If any of you are just looking to vent your anger, you can easily find other places for that. So in other words factual, and constructive discussions are what we encourage.

These discussions serve the purpose of explaining your perspective, and understanding your fellow GMC'ers perspective. If you participate in this thread for any other reason - I ask you to refrain from posting.


Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Dec 22 2016, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM) *
I wasn't going to post again in this thread but your post motivated me otherwise smile.gif Well said!!!!!! smile.gif Hopefully the forum can be a place to talk politics without venting, without provocation, hopefully without wads of questionable vids as well, mostly focused on genuine discussion.

Todd


Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 22 2016, 03:44 AM) *
Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.


It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Dec 22 2016, 11:45 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM) *
It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.


I don't have enough insights to provide meaningful input. But I do think you did well in reasoning around this in a sensible way. If we can keep this tone, political discussions will add value to the community.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 22 2016, 11:54 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 22 2016, 05:51 PM) *
It is difficult Kris, the president elected fan a campaign based rooted in emotion, without substance. But I will give it a whack.

Let's take the most recent proposal that has emerged, slapping 5% Tariffs on imports.

Perhaps he is not really serious, that this is just his way of throwing out something sensational. Then I ask myself, why is he doing that? Is this for foreign consumption, or for his populist base? It would seem that it would be for his domestic base supporters, something that would sound good to them. And 5% is such a low number, it would not be very significant anyway, he had floated tariffs of closer to 50% during his campaign, which of course would be totally insane. I am not sure how China and others would react to a 5% tariff. It is more of a message than anything that would in itself change anything.

Now I have made a statement. I really have not provided any support, that wold take a lot of paragraphs and nobody would read it. But I invite anyone to explain to me, why this 5% Tariff plan has been floated out here, and what good this is supposed to do for anyone, for Trump, the American people, or whoever?

My interpretation is that this is to drum up populist support primarily, but it is also a message to the Chinese. For the former it will work in the short term. For the latter, I think it will be received just a well as the English symbolic Tea Tax was by the North American Colonials. They won't stand for it, and they don't have to. They see Americans as having created their own problems, and they have no intention of shouldering the weight of the solution to those problems.

Your side of the isle seems to always complain about jobs leaving so I would think going this direction would limit jobs leaving , as businesses would know they won't save money , since they get taxed on goods coming back in ( creating more jobs here ). It would also level the field, as many countries thrive on selling their goods to the US and have the same tariffs ( do a honest search you probably won't believe my source ) for US goods coming into their country.
Now to cover the costs of the tariffs , they will need to increase the cost of their goods ( because they will not survive not making profit and more importantly , not having America buy their products ) >now if products from foreign countries are more expensive, would that make it possible for American products to be more competitive ? 5% percent might not be enough but its a start . what did Obama do ?

Posted by: fkalich Dec 23 2016, 12:35 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 22 2016, 05:54 PM) *
Your side of the isle seems to always complain about jobs leaving so I would think going this direction would limit jobs leaving , as businesses would know they won't save money , since they get taxed on goods coming back in ( creating more jobs here ). It would also level the field, as many countries thrive on selling their goods to the US and have the same tariffs ( do a honest search you probably won't believe my source ) for US goods coming into their country.
Now to cover the costs of the tariffs , they will need to increase the cost of their goods ( because they will not survive not making profit and more importantly , not having America buy their products ) >now if products from foreign countries are more expensive, would that make it possible for American products to be more competitive ? 5% percent might not be enough but its a start . what did Obama do ?


As Kris has injected the concept "civility not optional" I i will continue with that theme, I agree that people, including myself, should act that way.

Regarding sources, as I think you will agree, that whatever one's view on anything, one can find sources that on the surface sound convincing to prove anything, and then find sources just as convincing to support the opposite POV. For anything like that to be convincing it would necessarily be very specific, very limited in scope. Broad general topics take in depth exhaustive analysis. Not that that does not stop people arguing endlessly over broad topics based on minimal superficial supporting documents.

For example, some claim that Tariffs would be effective, and justify this based on the US having them in the distant past, as in the 19th century. That may seem supportive, but they leave off the fact that global trade was a minimal part of our economy back then, and also that we had a number of depressions and recessions in our history, some of them very long lasting.

So let me just say something that I think everyone may agree with. Do you really think that the Chinese, or anyone else, thinks that they are taking advantage of the United States in global trade? This is where I would be concerned about Trump's limited experience. Is he capable of really seeing things from the perspective of others, a perspective far different than his own?

Whatever we may think is unfair, don't delude yourself that the Chinese look at things that way. Take a different topic, Taiwan independence as an example. Most in the West deep down think they should have self-determination. But be assured, and I mean 100%, the Chinese on the mainland don't feel that way, and will NEVER feel that way, and they feel very righteous in that regard, they feel they have a sacred right to that Island, and it is not negotiable, and never will be, end of story. I am just saying, you have to accept such things, when it would come down to kill or be killed, and there would be no other possible outcome.

So if we put on Tariffs, I submit that the Chinese would look at this as unfair to them. And the question is, will they take actions to punish us. And they can. And politically they might be forced to do this, even if the outcome would be recessionary on a global scale.

An ECON 101 type analysis (you can find such online) explains how countries can start into these trade wars, and it degenerate into what are called "Beggar Thy Neighbor" policies. That is what happened during the Great Depression, and one of the big reasons that depression became so deep and persistent. China can hurt us, and hurt us bad, in a number of ways, if we start playing hardball with them, and they perceive it as unfair, regardless of how justified we may feel about it.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 23 2016, 02:43 AM

We don't really know what products would be subject to the tariffs. It could be only big ticket items like cars, steel and appliances. Who knows - he's not actually president yet and policy takes some time.

Where things can or may get a little more complicated or cloudier is with an across the board tariff on all goods from a foreign country that is deemed to be unfairly pricing their goods or adjusting their monetary policy. If we're talking about China then it's important to remember that a lot of stuff made in the USA uses some Chinese (or Asian in general) parts. I know Gibson and Fender guitars do, I know Ford cars do, I know most US furniture has Asian bolts and screws. Shit, 'Craftsman' tools (Sears) are made in Taiwan and China. If there's this hypothetical 5% import tariff then probably most things, even US things will cost a few percent more. You maybe wouldn't really feel it when you purchase barbecue tools but that next flat screen TV or dishwasher may give you some sticker shock.Then think about all the clothes you buy that are relatively cheap. The tee shirts, socks, gym shoes, etc. What about pencils and pens? Tires, bikes, hot wheels, cheap silverware, soccer ball, coffee mug ... it's kind of endless. And it would all go up. You put a tariff on foreign socks and maybe Bangladesh or Indonesia will sell elsewhere - ? American made tube socks are not going to cost $10 for ten pair. Our standard of living here is high - even for shit wage workers compared to workers in Asia. Our fed min wage is $7.50. A Bangladeshi garment worker makes about .45 an hour. A Chinese, $1.26.

JSTCRSN - you build and install Jacuzzis and spas, correct? Are any of the parts or materials you have to order made overseas? Would they be included in this hypothetical tariff? Would your supplier pass this cost on to you? Would you be passing this cost on to the consumer? I'm honestly asking. Do you think it would or could be something that would affect you as business owner?

The tariff thing never really works. Goods from parts of the world where it's cheaper to live (and wages are cheaper) are generally going to cost less for us here in the States and in Europe than those goods produced here and in Europe.
Japan is a great example. Japanese stuff used to be cheap (price and quality) in the 50s, 60 and 70s. Since the 80s their cost of and standard of living is now one of the highest in the world. Japanese things are expensive now and considered to be of high quality (Sony, Ibanez, Lexus, their steel, etc.)
Let's just say that hypothetically anything and everything from China goes up 5%, even excluding Chinese materials in American goods. It'll still be cheaper than most of the US, Japanese or European competition. So India and Indonesia will then be the heavy competition price wise. But we can't really have a trade war with them because they don't artificially alter their monetary policy. They just have a really low cost of living and wages.

We spend a lot on Foreign goods because we like the cheaper prices.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 23 2016, 03:45 AM

QUOTE (klasaine @ Dec 23 2016, 02:43 AM) *
We don't really know what products would be subject to the tariffs. It could be only big ticket items like cars, steel and appliances. Who knows - he's not actually president yet and policy takes some time.

Where things can or may get a little more complicated or cloudier is with an across the board tariff on all goods from a foreign country that is deemed to be unfairly pricing their goods or adjusting their monetary policy. If we're talking about China then it's important to remember that a lot of stuff made in the USA uses some Chinese (or Asian in general) parts. I know Gibson and Fender guitars do, I know Ford cars do, I know most US furniture has Asian bolts and screws. Shit, 'Craftsman' tools (Sears) are made in Taiwan and China. If there's this hypothetical 5% import tariff then probably most things, even US things will cost a few percent more. You maybe wouldn't really feel it when you purchase barbecue tools but that next flat screen TV or dishwasher may give you some sticker shock.Then think about all the clothes you buy that are relatively cheap. The tee shirts, socks, gym shoes, etc. What about pencils and pens? Tires, bikes, hot wheels, cheap silverware, soccer ball, coffee mug ... it's kind of endless. And it would all go up. You put a tariff on foreign socks and maybe Bangladesh or Indonesia will sell elsewhere - ? American made tube socks are not going to cost $10 for ten pair. Our standard of living here is high - even for shit wage workers compared to workers in Asia. Our fed min wage is $7.50. A Bangladeshi garment worker makes about .45 an hour. A Chinese, $1.26.

JSTCRSN - you build and install Jacuzzis and spas, correct? Are any of the parts or materials you have to order made overseas? Would they be included in this hypothetical tariff? Would your supplier pass this cost on to you? Would you be passing this cost on to the consumer? I'm honestly asking. Do you think it would or could be something that would affect you as business owner?

The tariff thing never really works. Goods from parts of the world where it's cheaper to live (and wages are cheaper) are generally going to cost less for us here in the States and in Europe than those goods produced here and in Europe.
Japan is a great example. Japanese stuff used to be cheap (price and quality) in the 50s, 60 and 70s. Since the 80s their cost of and standard of living is now one of the highest in the world. Japanese things are expensive now and considered to be of high quality (Sony, Ibanez, Lexus, their steel, etc.)
Let's just say that hypothetically anything and everything from China goes up 5%, even excluding Chinese materials in American goods. It'll still be cheaper than most of the US, Japanese or European competition. So India and Indonesia will then be the heavy competition price wise. But we can't really have a trade war with them because they don't artificially alter their monetary policy. They just have a really low cost of living and wages.

We spend a lot on Foreign goods because we like the cheaper prices.

Not any more but , yes and no. For the most part yes , I won't work for free and I would pass that along to the consumer, but everyone would , so the consumer would then Have a choice to pay or not have the service . I would also have a choice , if I needed to work bad enough ,and I do, low-ball jobs in slow times just to keep food on the table. This is all the free market eb and the flow, the other option is to raise taxes to cover and then everybody has to pay regardless, why should you have to pay for my business , if times are good I charge what I want (win for me ), if times aren't so good I low ball ( win for both, I keep my family feed and the consumer gets a discount) But , I will Low ball when I need to , the government can not move quick enough to help but the free market can . As a Owner of a company I am well aware of every decision that hits my bottom line

One question though , if it doesn't help , why do other countries do it

after china has got a taste of money they make from the US , I think they would think long and hard before they ruin that

If not tariff's than what ?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 23 2016, 05:12 AM

Again well said. It seems that my deeply held views are a pinch much for a core group of folks to stomach and it does seem to devolve despite my best efforts. I keep swearing off talking politics, then see some post that I just can't seem to let slide without offering a counterpoint. I honestly do not enjoy conflict for conflict's sake and always try to depersonalize political issues as much as possible. I'll make every effort to be more careful in the future though smile.gif

Todd

QUOTE (Kristofer Dahl @ Dec 22 2016, 04:44 AM) *
Yes! But for that to happen you also need to think about being more careful with the touchy stuff that you know will provoke, otherwise discussions won't move forward - and instead just turn into meaningless conflict seeking.


In keeping with a tone of civility and citing a source that is largely neutral, (neither msnbc or some blog or brietbart etc.) namely THE ECONOMIST (a pubilcation with a long an much lauded history from both sides of aisle), and offer this article about the impact of what is essentially "Protectionism", e.g. Tariffs. The people most hurt, in terms of purchasing power, are the poor. Which is why tariffs have not been widely adopted in our economy for some time now. Also, the article goes in to the declining participation of men in the work force that lack a college education. A topic I have brought up a few times, and gotten some fairly harsh criticism for I might add. I"m just sharing numbers here people, not passing judgement.

Here is the article.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21707834-truth-and-myth-about-effects-openness-trade-coming-and-going

I wanted to point out that I didn't personalize ANYTHING in my post here. I'd request any responders do the same? Such that we might maintain our civic tone?

Here is the chart in question with the employment/education numbers.
*Disclaimer: (Only talking about the issues I'm bringing up, not trying to talk about things I didn't mention, nor am I implying anything of any sort in any way to anybody)




Posted by: klasaine Dec 23 2016, 06:08 AM

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 22 2016, 07:45 PM) *
One question though , if it doesn't help , why do other countries do it

after china has got a taste of money they make from the US , I think they would think long and hard before they ruin that

If not tariff's than what ?


Other countries do do it and some of their populace complains about the outrageous prices they have to pay for everyday goods and services. Folks keep less of their money. Hence a lot more social programs to make up for that added living expense like subsidized school, medical, wage standards, retirement, almost unlimited unemployment insurance, some subsidized housing, a ton of subsidized transportation, etc. All paid for by higher taxes.

*Keep in mind that those countries that impose heavy tariffs on imported goods are essentially what we here in the US would label as 'socialist' governments.

There's really nothing you can do about a country that can produce goods at a fraction of the cost of what we can until their standard of living rises to the point where their wages are at least closer to ours. Our lowest paid workers make between 7 and 14 times more than what a low wage worker makes in Asia. Other than an outright embargo, we'll never be able to make it for less here. With shops like Walmart, Costco and K-Mart we've all gotten used to and expect that socks essentially cost $1 per pair. It ain't like that in other countries with a similar standard and cost of living.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 23 2016, 09:27 AM

I spent 10 minutes of my life looking for a very easy to read explanation of why Tariffs have serious deleterious effects on the populations of those that impose them. I made sure it was written by someone qualified, an Economics Professor, and that it was very clear and easy to read, you can read it in 2 or 3 minutes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/20/cray-negative-effects-tariffs/87286114/

You ask, if not Tariffs, then what? That is a big question.

An analysis was done of speeches by candidates during the last campaign. The best of them communicated on perhaps a 8th or 9th grade level. Trump was much lower, I saw him listed at a 4th grade, but at best a 5th or 6th grade level. We are not hearing anything serious from any of them, the answers lie well above those intellectual levels.

I guess the big question about Trump is whether he is actually operating on that level. My suspicion has been that it is not an act, his depth of comprehension of such matters is very limited. Apparently he is going to conduct his presidency in a similar manner to his presidential campaign, that he is going to keep trying to say things that gender support, rather than actually pursue a well thought out plan for success.

He is still doing all the tweets, whatever crosses his mind he just tweets it out, and I am sure they discuss in the morning whether it was effective propaganda or not, whether the response was favorable. So he apparently will focus on a day to day basis, trying to say what will be received favorably, until the next tweet.

Do you think that is really going to be an effective manner of running the Presidency? The man frightens the hell out of me, and i don't get scared that easily. We have never had a president like this. I understand that people want change, so do I, but you need to be sure that in making changes you don't wreck the joint. Even if your roof is leaking, it is better than no roof at all.

I always keep a year's supply of good dog food. Because if things really fall apart, nobody is going to put pets as a priority. A lot of dogs in England died in 1940. And hell, if worst comes to worst, the dogs will have to share with me, I buy them excellent food, it is not cheap. Not a lot of people have $1,000 worth of dog food in their house.


Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 23 2016, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (fkalich @ Dec 23 2016, 09:27 AM) *
I spent 10 minutes of my life looking for a very easy to read explanation of why Tariffs have serious deleterious effects on the populations of those that impose them. I made sure it was written by someone qualified, an Economics Professor, and that it was very clear and easy to read, you can read it in 2 or 3 minutes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/20/cray-negative-effects-tariffs/87286114/

You ask, if not Tariffs, then what? That is a big question.

An analysis was done of speeches by candidates during the last campaign. The best of them communicated on perhaps a 8th or 9th grade level. Trump was much lower, I saw him listed at a 4th grade, but at best a 5th or 6th grade level. We are not hearing anything serious from any of them, the answers lie well above those intellectual levels.

I guess the big question about Trump is whether he is actually operating on that level. My suspicion has been that it is not an act, his depth of comprehension of such matters is very limited. Apparently he is going to conduct his presidency in a similar manner to his presidential campaign, that he is going to keep trying to say things that gender support, rather than actually pursue a well thought out plan for success.

He is still doing all the tweets, whatever crosses his mind he just tweets it out, and I am sure they discuss in the morning whether it was effective propaganda or not, whether the response was favorable. So he apparently will focus on a day to day basis, trying to say what will be received favorably, until the next tweet.

Do you think that is really going to be an effective manner of running the Presidency? The man frightens the hell out of me, and i don't get scared that easily. We have never had a president like this. I understand that people want change, so do I, but you need to be sure that in making changes you don't wreck the joint. Even if your roof is leaking, it is better than no roof at all.

I always keep a year's supply of good dog food. Because if things really fall apart, nobody is going to put pets as a priority. A lot of dogs in England died in 1940. And hell, if worst comes to worst, the dogs will have to share with me, I buy them excellent food, it is not cheap. Not a lot of people have $1,000 worth of dog food in their house.

[.JPG]

I agree with this story mostly , but he is taking an example from 1930 , I don't think that is what caused the depression ( might not have helped ) but if you that scenario out from 1930 , all it has one mans view point at best . Lets see if it works or not, but what we are doin surely ain't working,

The whole rant after the story is what Kris is talking about , it does nothing for the conversation or a valid point you have in the link that we should discuss. He won , you are going have to come to grips with this . Can you put aside your hatred for the man to see clearly , What if some of what he does works? . Are you able to look back at Obama's mistakes or do you think he was perfect ?

P.S. If we are on the wrong path it will hurt to get off . It''s like riding a bike down a hill you get going to fast to control it , but you knowthat you have to bail before the hill gets steeper, it will hurt , you have a few bumps and bruises , your head spins for a little bit and then life goes on.
If you think any president, that has to get us out of 20 trillion dept, is going to be able to do it without a little pain you might need to rethink things. I think a little pain now is better for my kids than letting them try to have to clean up my generations( generation give me ) mess

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 23 2016, 06:51 PM

The points being made seem to be, simply, that Tariffs have a net negative impact on a populace and a far worse net negative impact on the poor. Per the article I shared, it's just bad economics in general. But it does play well as a tweet/talking point, etc. Muscle jobs go where muscle is cheap and that ain't here. The quicker we can make the full transition to an information based economy, the sooner we can get back "on track" imho. (Also why I keep focusing on education and graphs showing lack of labor participation by folks without an education) Trying to cling to the past, to economic realities that are simply no longer real, is just red meat for the base, not pragmatic policy imho. So in short, I'm asserting that tariffs will do nothing but make things worse for the folks that need the most help. But time will tell smile.gif

Todd

QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 23 2016, 09:22 AM) *
I agree with this story mostly , but he is taking an example from 1930 , I don't think that is what caused the depression ( might not have helped ) but if you that scenario out from 1930 , all it has one mans view point at best . Lets see if it works or not, but what we are doin surely ain't working,

The whole rant after the story is what Kris is talking about , it does nothing for the conversation or a valid point you have in the link that we should discuss. He won , you are going have to come to grips with this . Can you put aside your hatred for the man to see clearly , What if some of what he does works? . Are you able to look back at Obama's mistakes or do you think he was perfect ?

P.S. If we are on the wrong path it will hurt to get off . It''s like riding a bike down a hill you get going to fast to control it , but you knowthat you have to bail before the hill gets steeper, it will hurt , you have a few bumps and bruises , your head spins for a little bit and then life goes on.
If you think any president, that has to get us out of 20 trillion dept, is going to be able to do it without a little pain you might need to rethink things. I think a little pain now is better for my kids than letting them try to have to clean up my generations( generation give me ) mess

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 23 2016, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Dec 23 2016, 06:51 PM) *
The points being made seem to be, simply, that Tariffs have a net negative impact on a populace and a far worse net negative impact on the poor. Per the article I shared, it's just bad economics in general. But it does play well as a tweet/talking point, etc. Muscle jobs go where muscle is cheap and that ain't here. The quicker we can make the full transition to an information based economy, the sooner we can get back "on track" imho. (Also why I keep focusing on education and graphs showing lack of labor participation by folks without an education) Trying to cling to the past, to economic realities that are simply no longer real, is just red meat for the base, not pragmatic policy imho. So in short, I'm asserting that tariffs will do nothing but make things worse for the folks that need the most help. But time will tell smile.gif

Todd

I know what your articles have said ( are these the same professionals that said Trump was going to get annihilated ) , I could have found articles that said the opposite, which are all conjecture and theory , So I am saying , lets give it a chance, I don't think this economy is so fragile that we can't turn from it if it doesn't work . You said you would give him a chance , did that mean , you would give his policies a fair time to see if they would work or did it mean as soon as Trump talked about something you view as wrong , you are justified in your descent ? If it was the later , I don't really view that as giving him a chance.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 23 2016, 10:56 PM

Allow me to offer a correction here, the Economist, in particular the article I mentioned, said nothing about Trump getting elected or not getting elected. It simply made a valid argument with rational facts to reach a conclusion. I realize we live in a fact free world now, so I probably should have saved the article for another space. We have no choice at all, but to take the "wait and see" approach of course. I thought that much was a given, no?

I was pointing out that the path we seem to be heading toward has shown, repeatedly to be deleterious to any economy. Also that the ones who suffer most are the ones who need the most help. So while we "Wait and See", Ph.d Economists are simply pointing out the wheel turning yet again toward protectionism and pointing out the resultant problems that it creates. It has simply always had certain impacts. These are not conjecture. These are what we call "facts". They are not in dispute as they are hard numbers, with serious impact on the economy.


So I do agree that we have utterly no choice but to wait and see our govt regulation dismantled and perhaps tariffs added, history shows us that this approach favors the rich at the expense of the poor. A simple matter of history, not a matter of debate or conjecture. In short, we are heading for an even steeper divide between rich and poor. This isn't hard to see coming for anyone familiar with historical patterns of economic policy. It simply "is". Of course you can find any article you wish and I'd be happy to read it, but please do source from the Economist, Reuters, or the Associated Presss. For all their short comings, (and I admit they have many) they are simply the best of the worst from which to choose. If you can find a paper from a primary source (Mentioned previously) that suggest a contrarian view. I'd love to see it. It may exist. You'd have to find it though.

Todd


QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Dec 23 2016, 04:43 PM) *
I know what your articles have said ( are these the same professionals that said Trump was going to get annihilated ) , I could have found articles that said the opposite, which are all conjecture and theory , So I am saying , lets give it a chance, I don't think this economy is so fragile that we can't turn from it if it doesn't work . You said you would give him a chance , did that mean , you would give his policies a fair time to see if they would work or did it mean as soon as Trump talked about something you view as wrong , you are justified in your descent ? If it was the later , I don't really view that as giving him a chance.


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)