# Made in USA redux (poverty, trade, and all things in-between)



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

For those who want to discuss economics, poverty, trade etc.

I am going to stay out of it. I am a PhD in Economics and I read tons of misconceptions and poor arguments in the Made in USA thread. I do not want to get into internet arguments since a lot of you have very strong feelings about these subjects, while I come from a rational technical perspective.

Just so you know, trade does lift all boats, American public debt is irrelevant (the deficit is more important, but still gets a lot more attention than it should), the idea that poverty is a "choice" and that everyone can make it is baloney, China's growth (and "market manipulations") has been VERY GOOD for the average American, taxes in the US are very low and should be increased, and the financial system should be more regulated. The US is and will continue to be the richest country in the world and the main source of innovation, financing and long run growth. The only thing that can hinder this? The stupid political discourse in America, from both sides. 

Bjorn, good luck trying to being the dissenting voice in the thread. I do not envy you.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I too do not envy Bjorn but I do admire his tenacity! I agree with every point you've made especially your comment, about the idea that poverty is a "Choice." This attitude, way of thought, is completely devoid of rational fact and clearly shows true human nature at it's worst. (We know what they truly want, which is more for themselves and less for everyone else!)

When I say this out to close friends they point out that my income puts me as someone who stands to lose if higher taxes and more socially responsible policies were enacted by our government. I guess this makes me someone who's ideas betray their class. So be it.

Your comment about the political discourse in the U.S., I believe the larger issue is the *incredible stupidity of the American electorate at large*! We continue to argue right verses left when in fact the *entire system *has been *completely corrupted* by the *bribery*, disguised as "political contributions," that we've legalized in the U.S.A..

Why do both houses of congress vote with the extreme fringes of their political parties? Because the organizations that BRIBE them with their big money make them all sign "pledges" before they will give the legislators political contributions, (bribes) to get them elected and keep them in office.

Our national legislators are no longer beholden to us, the people, they are beholden to the people who keep them in office! These career politicians laugh at us and even call us "Ordinary citizens" right to our faces! All the while these dumbed-down citizens continue to argue, right wing verses left wing!

Winston Churchill had it spot on when he said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> I agree with every point you've made especially your comment, about the idea that poverty is a "Choice."
> 
> This attitude, way of thought, is completely devoid of rational fact and clearly shows true human nature at it's worst. (We know what they truly want, which is more for themselves and less for everyone else!)
> 
> Your comment about the political discourse in the U.S., I believe the larger issue is the *incredible stupidity of the American electorate at large*! We continue to argue right verses left when in fact the *entire system *has been *completely corrupted* by the *bribery*, disguised as "political contributions," that we've legalized in the U.S.A..


1) This is a false straw man. No one said ALL poverty in the US is a choice. However, it has become evident that "poverty" in the US is incomprable to the poverty suffered here 50+ years ago or throughout much of the world today.

2) How does someone's success prohibit someone else's success?? In the US I do not believe that I'd be making 100K+ a year if only some Billionaire was taxed more or made less. So explain it to us.

3) While I think you have improved recently, It hasn't been our polital leaders beholden to special interests that have deteriorated the public discourse. Here in our little forum it has been people and persons like us who are quick to paint any opposition to their own interests as haters bigots or uninformed.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

In my opinion, and the opinion of lots of people on the left – the fight for control of the government ( and the power that comes with that) has now superseded politicians acting in the best interest of the majority of the people they represent. This is the EXACT strategy of the Republican party….if Obama fails (and in proxy – most of us also fall deeper into this recession), they take over the White House and Congress – so they win. Period.

When the economy tanked in 2001 and Republicans stood to bear the blame, suddenly tax cuts -- that is to say, deficit-financed countercyclical spending -- were a great idea. “Because the economy is slowing down, I believe it is vital that Congress pass a pro-growth tax cut," explained Dick Armey. They went on to pass another round of tax cuts in 2003, which were also deficit-financed, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, which was, you guessed it, paid for by adding to the deficit.

Now that unemployment is mired at 9.7 percent and the Republicans stand to gain from the public thinking the Democrats are failures, deficit-financed countercyclical spending suddenly seems like a terrible idea. Deficits in general seem like a terrible idea, though they're much more defensible now than they were in 2003 (and it's much cheaper for the government to borrow money, and thus run deficits, than it was in 2003). 

I don't question the sincerity with which Republicans are concerned about the deficit. But if they were in power and the economic fundamentals looked the way they do, I have no doubt that they'd be passing stimulus bills, and quick. Voters judge the majority party based on economic conditions across the country. The minority party benefits from the failure of the majority and is able to make the majority fail by massing 41 senators together to filibuster legislation. And as even the most conservative economist would agree, incentives affect behavior. This is all playing out much as you'd expect. The question is whether this is a wise way to run the government.

Republicans don’t hate America, they just don’t care about lots of Americans. (And many of them don’t count about half of Americans as Real Americans.) They don’t want the country to fail, they just don’t think it counts as a failure when millions of people can’t find work or afford healthcare or buy groceries.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> When the economy tanked in 2001 and *Republicans *stood to bear the blame, suddenly tax cuts -- that is to say, deficit-financed countercyclical spending -- were a great idea. "Because the economy is slowing down, I believe it is vital that Congress pass a pro-growth tax cut," explained Dick Armey. They went on to pass another round of tax cuts in *2003, which were also deficit-financed, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit*, which was, you guessed it, paid for by adding to the deficit.
> 
> Republicans don't hate America, they just don't care about lots of Americans. (And many of them don't count about half of Americans as Real Americans.) They don't want the country to fail, they just don't think it counts as a failure when millions of people can't find work *or afford healthcare* or buy groceries.


While I agree that deficit funding for Medicare Part D was ill-advised, these statements don't seem to reconcile with one another.

People in the US get access to healthcare regardless of income and help with groceries no matter who is in office so why do you make such claims??


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

1) My comment was only in response to bernoulli, (the original poster). But there are many on the right who think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak and I believe that is mostly, (I said mostly not all) complete bologna. It's actually code for an attitude like your's, which from what I can gather from your written word, is essentially, "I have mine and screw any policy that attempts to maintain a standard of living that most American should not fall below." *(especially if it involves you paying anything more than what you do)*

2) *No one, I said NO ONE said that someone's success prohibits someone else's success.* You're out to lunch, looking for a fight, or just plain cannot be reasoned with. For Pete's sake you start with a premise tha*t no one in this thread posted* and then attempt to show it as being incorrect.

3) Woulda, you are an extreme extremist! I'm far from the only one who sees this and I have to agree with the fellow who posted in the Palestinian statehood thread that I was wrong for trying to reason with a zealot like you. (his words not mine) And your comment about being called a hater, a bigot, or uninformed is just you smarting over your bruises from that thread,...

No more for you.

It' all of nothing with you. You just can't see subtlety's. Like many you're a follower, a follower of highly right wing leaders, (like many who follow both right wing and left wing politicians) and the complex situation we're facing in our country requires that many complexities be taken into consideration. I don't think you're capable of that level of critical thought. That is why I am not optimistic for the long term future or the sustainability of opportunity for the comon man in the U.S.A..


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> While I agree that deficit funding for Medicare Part D was ill-advised, these statements don't seem to reconcile with one another.
> 
> People in the US get access to healthcare regardless of income and help with groceries no matter who is in office so why do you make such claims??


*This is 100% completely incorrect!* The #1 cause of bankruptcy is the U.S. is a medical bill because the individual was uninsured! Sure people get free medical care if they have nothing that can be taken away, but they are still billed and someone eats that expense!

Where in the he*l do you come up with this crap that you post? Pull you head out of the sand and read any newspaper in the USA,.....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> 2) *No one, I said NO ONE said that someone's success prohibits someone else's success.*


(We know what they truly want, which is more for themselves and less for everyone else!)

Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think any successful person want less success for another; unless it's a case of schadenfreude of course!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> *This is 100% completely incorrect!* The #1 cause of bankruptcy is the U.S. is a medical bill because the individual was uninsured!


This is not contradictory to my statement "People in the US get *access to healthcare* regardless of income"

That's what I call "seeing subtlety's."

Don't let your emotions get the best of you!!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Hey Woulda, it's cool that Megabutthertz is an old friend of yours who obviously has known you in person for years and feels such a high comfort level when addressing you. At least, that's the only explanation I can see for one grown man speaking to another on a public forum with such disrespect. Just sayin'...


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Hey hardline your opinion amounts to ziltch, nada, nothing.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Be serious, as I recently replied to a private message regarding you and your political thoughts it's good sport. Or it was good sport until another private message, from the same fellow who called you a zealot, made the realize, you're not worth trying to reason with.

Yes people can have access to heath-care even if it bankrupts them. It's like someone is dying of thirst in the desert someone is selling water for $10K per liter and someone like you says, "See, they have access to water,..."

That's the kind of subtlety you can pick up on.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ hey hardline you opinion amount to ziltch, nada, nothing.


Aww, dang. How'm I gonna break the bad news to my family?

But seriously, you catch more flies with honey, is all.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> Hey Woulda, it's cool that Megabutthertz is an old friend of yours who obviously has known you in person for years and feels such a high comfort level when addressing you. At least, that's the only explanation I can see for one grown man speaking to another on a public forum with such disrespect. Just sayin'...


 Welcome to the interchange. Put on your big boy pants


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Welcome to the interchange. Put on your big boy pants


Do you know where I can find a pair of Made in USA big boy pants, preferably flat-front and cuffed with a traditional rise? Just having a bit of fun. Carry on.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> Winston Churchill had it spot on when he said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."


I think this is not an argument against democracy per se, but against having government (force) as the biggest institution commanding human conduct in our society. I much prefer markets and civil society. If government was a referee rather than the major player, we might find that voting, politics, lobbying, campaigns, corruption, etc. mattered less.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> Yes people can have access to heath-care even if it bankrupts them. It's like someone is dying of thirst in the desert someone is selling water for $10K per liter and someone like you says, "See, they have access to water,..."


Medical treatment can be expensive. It is best that one prepares for this inevitable need just as one shouldn't venture into the desert without water.

The government provides coverage for the most needy of Americans. That's OK. But I don't see how Obama's "plan" increases coverage or reduces medical costs as promised.

How should the Government provide "I forgot water when travelling in the desert" insurance??

Your analogy doesn't hold water!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Medical treatment can be expensive. It is best that one prepares for this inevitable need just as one shouldn't venture into the desert without water. How should the Government provide "I forgot water when travelling in the desert" insurance??


And there you have it. The articulation of the modern day Republican Party mantra in three sentences.

If you are an individual and life brings you bad weather or bad fortune - TOUGH S*IT, that is your own fault.

If you are a big bank or investment firm who has done the same - DON'T WORRY - a bailout is on the way.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> And there you have it. The articulation of the modern day Republican Party mantra in three sentences.
> 
> If you are an individual and life brings you bad weather or bad fortune - TOUGH S*IT, that is your own fault.
> 
> If you are a big bank or investment firm who has done the same - DON'T WORRY - a bailout is on the way.


You insist on mischaracterizing what I say.



WouldaShoulda said:


> The government provides coverage for the most needy of Americans. That's OK. But I don't see how Obama's "plan" increases coverage or reduces medical costs as promised.


I know a President that does the same thing. 

Every time Obama precludes a remark "they say" I know I'm in for a WHOPPER and that no one actually said what he says they said!!

If the facts are on one's side, one should not have to resort to such tactics.

It doesn't seem "Big Boy" to me.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ That's right there you do have it. Very well stated. He'll never address obvious inconsistencies in his own way of thinking.

No way he's going to change and there are legions more just like him who don't know exactly what they're for but they know what they're against.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Medical treatment can be expensive. It is best that one prepares for this inevitable need just as one shouldn't venture into the desert without water.
> 
> The government provides coverage for the most needy of Americans. That's OK. But I don't see how Obama's "plan" increases coverage or reduces medical costs as promised.
> 
> ...


Define needy.

Problem with your weak rebuttal is that these people have not been traveling in the desert. A federal government beholden to the people who've paid them bribes have created a desert for them and they do not have the money to get themselves out of the barren landscape of what it once meant to be middle class in the USA.

Did I say I was in favor of Obama's plan? No I did not. But because you have no idea what it is that you're for you just throw stones at what you think you're against.

You don't know what to do with someone who's not a left wing liberal and can also see the idiocy of people who make under $500K per year supporting a Republican.

The only thing I hate worse than a Democrat is a Republican. The government is corrupt, all while the "Ordinary citizens" argue about who's Democrat and who's Republican.

Babble on.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> No way he's going to change and there are legions who don't know exactly what they're for but they know what they're against.





jeffdeist said:


> I think this is not an argument against democracy per se, but against having government (force) as the biggest institution commanding human conduct in our society. I much prefer markets and civil society. If government was a referee rather than the major player, we might find that voting, politics, lobbying, campaigns, corruption, etc. mattered less.


I'm for that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> No way he's going to change and there are legions more just like him who don't know exactly what they're for but they know what they're against.


 Exactly right. Like all the Tea Party clowns - walking around talking about "limited government"&#8230;.yet ask them how the went to school (GI Bill), how they bought their first house (FHA loan), how they made their living (working for a company that fulfilled government contracts), how did they send their kids to college (Pell Grant), and now - they are collecting social security AND are insured by Medicare. But Government is EVIL....LMAO.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

127.72 MHz said:


> You don't know what to do with someone who's not a left wing liberal and can also see the idiocy of people who make under $500K per year supporting a Republican.


You make some decent points when you stay on track.

Other's don't know what to do with cogent right-leaning opinion based upon facts, instead of religious arguments or sentimentality.

I manage to get by!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> Exactly right. Like all the Tea Party clowns - walking around talking about "limited government"&#8230;.yet ask them how the went to school (GI Bill), how they bought their first house (FHA loan), how they made their living (working for a company that fulfilled government contracts), how did they send their kids to college (Pell Grant), and now - they are collecting social security AND are insured by Medicare. But Government is EVIL....LMAO.


As someone who served in the military, and took advantage of the GI Bill, and bought my first house with a VA loan, you can piss up a rope. They are not the product of "big government." They are incentives & rewards for serving this country.

Those are our JOB benefits. Those are things we *earn* at our job, just like you *earn* your job benefits. It's part of our pay & benefits package. You know that thing you considered when you took your job.

How good is the insurance? (SGLI/Tri-care)
Does the company have Tuition Reimbursement (GI Bill).
What's the pay like? (See below)

Well guess what, an E4 (the rank most people will reach after 4 years in service), makes $27,000/yr (before benefits). That's less than $15/hr assuming a 40 hour week (after working in the same job for 4 years). Sure we get room & board, but we also get shot at.

As for Social Security, I resigned myself long ago that I will NEVER get back what I put into it. The government effectively stole the difference from me. If I could figure a way out not to pay one more red cent into it, I would. But since I have to, I'll be sure to get every penny the government owes me. Every cent. It's not an entitlement, it's mine and I'm getting it back if I'm at all able.

I'm no Tea Party member, but I do favor "trimming the fat" on our government. Like getting rid of the TSA, and reducing the effective power of the DHS. Saying the government is too big, is not saying it's Evil. *It's just saying it's badly run. You know, the same thing ALL parties say.*

It's just a disagreement over who is right on how it should be run.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> You don't know what to do with someone who's not a left wing liberal and can also see the idiocy of people who make under $500K per year supporting a Republican.


Depends on the issue. You don't see a lot of Right wingers supporting "Gun Control" nor left wingers supporting the Second Amendment.

Both parties have their good points. Both have their bad.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> As someone who served in the military, and took advantage of the GI Bill, and bought my first house with a VA loan, you can piss up a rope. They are not the product of "big government." They are incentives & rewards for serving this country.
> 
> Those are our JOB benefits. Those are things we *earn* at our job, just like you *earn* your job benefits. It's part of our pay & benefits package. You know that thing you considered when you took your job.
> 
> ...


You're not supposed to get back what you pay into social security. Its an insurance scheme. The benefit for you is counted in 1. you have a fallback, and 2. other people don't become destitute when they crash which positively affects your life as well.

The government don't owe you your tax dollar. You just get to vote on what happens to it.

As a soldier, you worked for the government. Any benefit thereof is surely the product of big government. I'm guessing food/board adds 25 % to you earnings, but I don't know what people generally make in the US so I'm har pressed to make a comparison.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> As someone who served in the military, and took advantage of the GI Bill, and bought my first house with a VA loan, you can piss up a rope. They are not the product of "big government." They are incentives & rewards for serving this country.


First off&#8230;.thank you for your service.

As for the rest, you can stick your head in the sand if you like, that does not change the fact that a program - ESPECIALLY one administered by the military is the VERY DEFINITION of big government. The fact that those programs did good things for good people is the point. Guess government is only the problem with it is helping SOMEONE ELSE.



Apatheticviews said:


> Those are our JOB benefits. Those are things we *earn* at our job, just like you *earn* your job benefits. It's part of our pay & benefits package. You know that thing you considered when you took your job.


Totally agree&#8230;..did you miss the part last year when Orin Hatch proposed those on Unemployment be drug tested&#8230;.or that dope from Nevada, Sharron Engle who said Unemployment makes people lazy? Yeah, collecting 50% of what you once earned makes you lazy&#8230;..what a dolt.



Apatheticviews said:


> I'm no Tea Party member, but I do favor "trimming the fat"


As do I. Not sure why you are defending those loony tunes if you are not one of them&#8230;.but anyway.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Okay, okay, okay. I'm gonna have to step in this thread now.

Only to say that it's "Looney Tunes" -- gosh, mrkleen, get it right ya putz.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> For those who want to discuss economics, poverty, trade etc.
> 
> I am going to stay out of it. I am a PhD in Economics and I read tons of misconceptions and poor arguments in the Made in USA thread. I do not want to get into internet arguments since a lot of you have very strong feelings about these subjects, while I come from a rational technical perspective.
> 
> ...


Your original post on the fashion forum was an interesting question, but I must just acknowledge that this is the most condescending OP I have ever read! You tout your PhD in economics, then state that you will keep out of the debate while implying that you are being 'rational technical' while others are irrational, then cannot resist giving yourself the 'last word' with a series of your opinions, for which you do not invite discussion (with you anyway), many of which are highly controversial!

I mean no offence, but If your PhD puts you in an exulted position you should surely be able to facilitate the debate and should not be afraid to enter dialouge, even with those who may passionately disagree with you. Else, why start the thread? :smile:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Haffman said:


> Your original post on the fashion forum was an interesting question, but I must just acknowledge that this is the most condescending OP I have ever read! You tout your PhD in economics, then state that you will keep out of the debate while implying that you are being 'rational technical' while others are irrational, then cannot resist giving yourself the 'last word' with a series of your opinions, for which you do not invite discussion (with you anyway), many of which are highly controversial!
> 
> I mean no offence, but If your PhD puts you in an exulted position you should surely be able to facilitate the debate and should not be afraid to enter dialouge, even with those who may passionately disagree with you. Else, why start the thread? :smile:


He may have though that the thread would focus more on 'made in America' and it kinda derailed into general politics, by myself included.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> Exactly....I mean, why even TRY to educate our next generation....its not like they will grow up and be expected to take our country into the future....oh wait.


What part of the opportunities are there, but the majority of the students don't take advantage of them did you miss?


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Haffman said:


> Your original post on the fashion forum was an interesting question, but I must just acknowledge that this is the most condescending OP I have ever read! You tout your PhD in economics, then state that you will keep out of the debate while implying that you are being 'rational technical' while others are irrational, then cannot resist giving yourself the 'last word' with a series of your opinions, for which you do not invite discussion (with you anyway), many of which are highly controversial!
> 
> I mean no offence, but If your PhD puts you in an exulted position you should surely be able to facilitate the debate and should not be afraid to enter dialouge, even with those who may passionately disagree with you. Else, why start the thread? :smile:


Don't worry, I did not take offense. I understand your points perfectly, but I knew the thread was going to degenerate into ad hominem attacks and internal American politics, both of which I am uninterested. I am here to learn and to have nice armchair arguments. I don't need to either win discussions nor to have whatever knowledge I possess shoved through people's throats. Before the OP post on this thread I never came out stating I was a PhD etc etc, but whenever I tried to offer rational dispassionate arguments I did not meet people interested in rebating it. I did get people calling BS, providing pointless stories etc etc.

Most of what I stated in this OP is not controversial at all, just facts. The problem with Economics is that tons of people think they understand it without having taking more than one course in the subject. That is why a book like Freaknomics was such a success, it showed how counter-intuitive Econ can be. I would gladly try to explain all the facts I posted in the OP if we all could have an interesting productive discussion. But again, I come here to learn, not to teach or preach or whatever. I could very well learn from people here, but I did not feel I was going to in this thread. Maybe I am being condescending again, and it is not my intention. I just think this is kind of a train wreck and I have no intention to stay here and watch. I would rather use the little free time I have to learn more about sartorial matters.

As for why I started the thread? Because it did not belong in the Fashion Forum. Simple as that! 

To sum it up, what Bjorn said!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> You're not supposed to get back what you pay into social security. Its an insurance scheme. The benefit for you is counted in 1. you have a fallback, and 2. other people don't become destitute when they crash which positively affects your life as well.
> 
> The government don't owe you your tax dollar. You just get to vote on what happens to it.


1) Insurance and annuity plans collect premiums, place them into reserves and investments to pay beneficiaries. American Social Security pays beneficiaries with the premiums collected from new annuity holders. (Ponzi scheme) Be that as it may, it actually worked for a time because it had an actuarial basis involved whereby most of the policyholders died before they began to collect. (Since most people died before they turned 60) Now that the average age exceeds 70, it no longer works and needs to be changed if only to increase the retirement age or change the plan entirely for new enrollees to more closely resemble 401s. (Private retirement plans)

2) So if one pays 140% more tax than the other fellow does his vote count 140%??


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

mrp said:


> What part of the opportunities are there, but the majority of the students don't take advantage of them did you miss?


 If you owned a company that produced what you considered a great car, yet VERY FEW people were buying them, you could do two things. Stand there with an indignant attitude - and shortly go out of business. Or change the way you position and market you car, and try and generate more sales (i.e. more successful students.) The current system (as exemplified in your attitude) is NOT working. Anyone who can't see that, has their eyes closed. And in the end we will all pay, as China, Korea, Germany and others continue to pass us by.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ... (i.e. more successful students.) The current system (as exemplified in your attitude) is NOT working. Anyone who can't see that, has their eyes closed. And in the end we will all pay, as China, Korea, Germany and others continue to pass us by.


Since Chinese, Korean, German and others come here and acheive success in our educational sysytem, maybe the system isn't as broken as the families students come from.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Since Chinese, Korean, German and others come here and acheive success in our educational sysytem, maybe the system isn't as broken as the families students come from.


 They come here for HIGHER education....not K to 12. Big difference. But even acknowledging your point - I again say that if the system is broken (be that the system of educating our students - or the system of family support and structure) we need to work on fixing it. Standing on the sidelines and saying "everyone has an equal opportunity" while 30% of our young people drop out of school is clearly not working.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> If you owned a company that produced what you considered a great car, yet VERY FEW people were buying them, you could do two things. Stand there with an indignant attitude - and shortly go out of business. Or change the way you position and market you car, and try and generate more sales (i.e. more successful students.) The current system (as exemplified in your attitude) is NOT working. Anyone who can't see that, has their eyes closed. And in the end we will all pay, as China, Korea, Germany and others continue to pass us by.


You aren't making a case for anything other than, the attitude in the US has to to change in regards to work.
If the US education system is so flawed why do some many foreign nationals come here for an education? and ultimately stay and take up teaching professions?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Exactly right. Like all the Tea Party clowns - walking around talking about "limited government"&#8230;.yet ask them how the went to school (GI Bill), how they bought their first house (FHA loan), how they made their living (working for a company that fulfilled government contracts), how did they send their kids to college (Pell Grant), and now - they are collecting social security AND are insured by Medicare. But Government is EVIL....LMAO.


Unadulterated BS!



Apatheticviews said:


> As someone who served in the military, and took advantage of the GI Bill, and bought my first house with a VA loan, you can piss up a rope. They are not the product of "big government." They are incentives & rewards for serving this country.
> 
> Those are our JOB benefits. Those are things we *earn* at our job, just like you *earn* your job benefits. It's part of our pay & benefits package. You know that thing you considered when you took your job.
> 
> ...


I think it incredibly saddening to see an American such as Apatheticviews, who has actually stuck their neck out and tangibly given back to this great nation of ours by contributing to her actual defense, finding it necessary to defend their use of GI Bill and VA benefits in response to crap such as that spewed forth by mrkleen and others. Like Apathetic views, I am proud to say I earned a bachelor degree, attending school on an AFROTC scholarship. My masters degree came through a program, offered as an incentive for those serving on launch crews in the Minuteman ICBM program and the 12 credits I accumulated towards a PHD (before I decided to take some time off to catch my breath...and just never went back!) were paid for through the GI Bill. It seems some in our midst would call that living off the public dole. However, after serving 31 years and watching my family make sacrifices and endure hardships that most other familys simply have no concept of or appreciation for, I find it impossible to look upon the GI Bill and VA benefits as simply examples of the largess of a supposedly benevolent, yet socialistically inclined government.

For those of you sitting in your Ivory Towers and issuing your high faluting judgements and intellectual pronouncements, try living with the consequences of punching out of a crippled airframe, riding a disabled chopper to ground, enduring surgical corrections to various parts of your bodies as a result of all those past misadventures and daily living with the reality of arthritis throughout various parts of your body, as lingering reminders of all those misadventures! The particularly sobbering reality in this situation is that any sacrifices Apatheticviews or I may have made, pale in comparison to those of far too many others providing miltary service to this nation as well as other nations. The saddest reality of all and perhaps the most extreme poverty exhibited by this Nation, at this point in our history, is that so very, very many are willing to stand back and allow such a very small percentage of their population do ALL the heavy lifting...whether that be military service or any of the other decidedly hard and unplesant tasks!

Apatheticviews: As one (washed up, burned out) warrior to another, thank you very much for your service! For all you Ivory Tower academics, get out of your classrooms once in a while and take a look at the real world!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Unadulterated BS!


 After reading the rest of your post - seems you are well acquainted with the concept. This is very simple&#8230;it isn't a big government program or an entitlement, when YOU are the one benefiting from it. But when it is used to feed a poor family, or help someone who has lost a job - it is a hand out. WHAT A JOKE.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

mrp said:


> If the US education system is so flawed why do some many foreign nationals come here for an education? and ultimately stay and take up teaching professions?


 So, lets keep doing the same things we have been doing&#8230;.because clearly, they are working out well.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

mrkleen said:


> They come here for HIGHER education....not K to 12. Big difference. But even acknowledging your point - I again say that if the system is broken (be that the system of educating our students - or the system of family support and structure) we need to work on fixing it. Standing on the sidelines and saying "everyone has an equal opportunity" while 30% of our young people drop out of school is clearly not working.


As mentioned in my original response, the Sunshine State has amply opportunities for kids to get a 2 years of college for free by the time they graduate HS. I can't and never did speak for the other 49 states, I challenged the OP's claim that opportunities don't exist in the US.
IMO there is no fix if the youth doesn't want to go to school to learn, while things look pretty good for in grades 1-6, they begin to stratify in middle school and high school (peer pressure, media influence, lack of family influence). As mentioned my oldest son had some bright ideas of his own for a while.

In regards to Germany, things are not so rosy there either (I have plenty of first hand knowledge having family, friends, and spent a large part of my life there as well).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> This is very simple&#8230;it isn't a big government program or an entitlement, when YOU are the one benefiting from it.


Veterans earn it. Entitlements are entirely different. Conflating the two is disingenuous.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Veterans earn it. Entitlements are entirely different. Conflating the two is disingenuous.


No one is conflating ANYTHING&#8230;other than you. You are trying to muddy the water by mixing two different issues.

Yes, people who serve in the military have "earned" the right to collect benefits like VA medical care, GI Bill loans etc. But how is unemployment insurance or Medicare any different? They are ALSO earned benefits.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> Most of what I stated in this OP is not controversial at all, just facts. The problem with Economics is that tons of people think they understand it without having taking more than one course in the subject. That is why a book like Freaknomics was such a success, it showed how counter-intuitive Econ can be. I would gladly try to explain all the facts I posted in the OP if we all could have an interesting productive discussion. But again, I come here to learn, not to teach or preach or whatever. I could very well learn from people here, but I did not feel I was going to in this thread. Maybe I am being condescending again, and it is not my intention. I just think this is kind of a train wreck and I have no intention to stay here and watch. I would rather use the little free time I have to learn more about sartorial matters.


Thank you for your eloquent reply. I think you and I differ in our understanding of the meaning of 'facts', still more of scientific facts, as in your original post on THIS thread I saw a mixture of adage and assertion, some of which I agreed with, but I think not a single statement if fct that was beyond reasonable evidenced-based discussion and doubt. Nevertheless, I thought as I said that the original discussion that you tried to start was a very intetesting one.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Insurance and annuity plans collect premiums, place them into reserves and investments to pay beneficiaries. American Social Security pays beneficiaries with the premiums collected from new annuity holders. (Ponzi scheme) Be that as it may, it actually worked for a time because it had an actuarial basis involved whereby most of the policyholders died before they began to collect. (Since most people died before they turned 60) Now that the average age exceeds 70, it no longer works and needs to be changed if only to increase the retirement age or change the plan entirely for new enrollees to more closely resemble 401s. (Private retirement plans)
> 
> 2) So if one pays 140% more tax than the other fellow does his vote count 140%??


1 yes social security systems are imperfect and need to evolve, and cover such things that are not better provided to everyone by the private sector

2 no that is a part of why taxes always equalise, to a certain extent, incomes


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrp said:


> You aren't making a case for anything other than, the attitude in the US has to to change in regards to work.
> If the US education system is so flawed why do some many foreign nationals come here for an education? and ultimately stay and take up teaching professions?


Americans kinda do that in Europe and Asia too.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Unadulterated BS!
> 
> I think it incredibly saddening to see an American such as Apatheticviews, who has actually stuck their neck out and tangibly given back to this great nation of ours by contributing to her actual defense, finding it necessary to defend their use of GI Bill and VA benefits in response to crap such as that spewed forth by mrkleen and others. Like Apathetic views, I am proud to say I earned a bachelor degree, attending school on an AFROTC scholarship. My masters degree came through a program, offered as an incentive for those serving on launch crews in the Minuteman ICBM program and the 12 credits I accumulated towards a PHD (before I decided to take some time off to catch my breath...and just never went back!) were paid for through the GI Bill. It seems some in our midst would call that living off the public dole. However, after serving 31 years and watching my family make sacrifices and endure hardships that most other familys simply have no concept of or appreciation for, I find it impossible to look upon the GI Bill and VA benefits as simply examples of the largess of a supposedly benevolent, yet socialistically inclined government.
> 
> ...


This discussion does not go to the merit of military service. I simply meant that government program's are government program's.

My dad is an officer, my mom works in the public sector. I had my lunch money from the military and the municipality of Stockholm growing up= public money, tax kronas. There is nothing wrong with that. I am very thankful for those who serve their country as soldiers, or for that matter as firemen, nurses, teachers, or public servants.

You have a valid point in that there's a difference in when you provide work for your government $ vs just collecting them. But you simply can't argue against government per se while being employed by it.

The government isn't malevolent or benevolent, it simply is. In all fairness, you have 25 % of your GDP going to taxes. In the EU, the average is 40%. The UK is at 40%.

Other countries with 25% taxation is Venezuela, Uruguay, south Korea, Colombia, Bolivia, Belarus, Argentina etc.

Perhaps you not getting your money's worth out of your social security, pensions, public schools, FEMA etc. has something to do with the levels you have chosen to finance them at. Also, 5 % of those 25 % you do get from taxes go to military expenditure, which leaves a meagre 20 % to cover the rest unless you borrow heavily. Not that there's anything wrong with that expenditure per se, but it does leave a smaller amount for the public sector to spend. At that level, you are pretty unique among industrialised countries.

One wonders what kind of impact that has on American production, if any.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> You have a valid point in that there's a difference in when you provide work for your government $ vs just collecting them. But you simply can't argue against government per se while being employed by it.


Or directly benefiting from it.

Collecting Social Security and Medicare - while calling for cuts to other social programs and smaller government is the epitome of hypocrisy.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

mrp said:


> As mentioned in my original response, the Sunshine State has amply opportunities for kids to get a 2 years of college for free by the time they graduate HS. I can't and never did speak for the other 49 states


No..same type of programs are avilable to highschoolers here in the north east. My niece and nephew were lugging around college level text books by their junior years of high school.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Collecting Social Security and Medicare - while calling for cuts to other social programs and smaller government is the epitome of hypocrisy.


Not necessarily.

More efficiant service delivery means more benefits to beneficiaries.

The private sector has to do more with less.

We should demand the public sector do the same.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I simply meant that government program's are government program's.
> 
> The government isn't malevolent or benevolent, it simply is.


American culture is unique.

From our founding through today, central authority and control is properly viewed as inherently malevolent. Several of our States have economies larger than many countries in Europe or Asia. Our local Governments are generally thought of as necessary and vital.

Federal Government programs such as our military are specified as a Federal responsibily by our Constitution.

I feel that our Federal Agriculture Department should collect statistics and provide for food safety in interstate trade. That it finances school lunch programs or subsidizes agribusiness like ethanol production I view as unnecessary.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> More efficiant service delivery means more benefits to beneficiaries.
> 
> ...


Demanding more efficiency is fine, my problem is with the hypocrisy of the entire position.

Most people in the "tea party" have and contine to benefit directly from federally administered social and economic programs, yet when it comes to these same kind of programs helping their fellow Americans in need - they have no use for them.

Medicare / Social Security / GI Bills / VA Hospitals / Tax Refunds - YES

Food Stamps / Head Start / Medicaid / Community Health Centers - NO

They are for limited government only when the government is helping someone else. When they are the ones benefiting, it is an entitlement - not a hand out. Which makes them the biggest frauds going.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Demanding more efficiency is fine,


I'm happy to agree with you.

But some one had better tell Joe Klien he is a selfish, Tea Party hack!!

...Actually, there is an additional explanation. Conservatives, like liberals, routinely take advantage of a structural flaw in the modern welfare state: there is no creative destruction when it comes to government programs. Both "liberal" and "conservative" subsidies linger in perpetuity, sometimes metastasizing into embarrassing giveaways. Even the best-intentioned programs are allowed to languish in waste and incompetence. Take, for example, the famed early-education program called Head Start. (See more about the Head Start reform process.)
The idea is, as Newt Gingrich might say, simple liberal social engineering. You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients - and more productive citizens. Indeed, Head Start did work well in several pilot programs carefully run by professionals in the 1960s. And so it was "taken to scale," as the wonks say, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. 
It is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Haffman said:


> Thank you for your eloquent reply. I think you and I differ in our understanding of the meaning of 'facts', still more of scientific facts, as in your original post on THIS thread I saw a mixture of adage and assertion, some of which I agreed with, but I think not a single statement if fct that was beyond reasonable evidenced-based discussion and doubt. Nevertheless, I thought as I said that the original discussion that you tried to start was a very intetesting one.


Rereading my OP you are right that I read like I was being facetious. Here is my separation of what I call uncontroversial facts and merely opinion:

Facts with caveats: American public debt is irrelevant (caveat, in the short run) (the deficit is more important, but still gets a lot more attention than it should), China's growth (and "market manipulations") has been VERY GOOD for the average American (caveat, not to ALL americans), taxes in the US are very low and should be increased (caveat, not to European levels and certainly not enough to create disincentives to efficient labor and capital allocation), and the financial system should be more regulated (caveat, not super-duper regulated) . I know those facts may be counter-intuitive, but so be it. Those can be and discussed ad nauseum, but it won't change the fact that those are economic facts. I can recommend some books, but not a single point above is easy to prove in a forum without some economic theory or inductive data analysis.

Facetious but a fact: trade does lift all boats (all countries benefit, but some agents in each country lose, and they have a lot of incentive to hamper free trade). Easy to prove, I usually use a version of the Heckscher-Ohlin model‎ with some complementary analysis of intra-industry trade.

Essentially a fact but poorly phrased and with some caveats: the idea that poverty is a "choice" and that everyone can make it is baloney. Bjorn has made some excellent arguments, and Mike Petrik nailed it:



Mike Petrik said:


> Poverty is the result of an admixture of elusive components. Conservatives will tend to over-emphasize bad decision-making and self-indulgent behavior just as liberals will tend to over-emphasize bad luck or the bad behavior of the more successful. Individual views in this regard are largely based on our own life experiences.


Opinions: The US is and will continue to be the richest country in the world and the main source of innovation, financing and long run growth. The only thing that can hinder this? The stupid political discourse in America, from both sides. I stand by these opinions, but I don't think these are controversial.

I appreciate you calling me on this and, again, you were right that my OP did not read like it should.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm happy to agree with you.


I am sure it is for vastly different reasons&#8230;.but for the next 2 minutes while I finish my reply&#8230;good to hear it.


WouldaShoulda said:


> The idea is, as Newt Gingrich might say, simple liberal social engineering. You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients - and more productive citizens. Indeed, Head Start did work well in several pilot programs carefully run by professionals in the 1960s. And so it was "taken to scale," as the wonks say, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.
> 
> It is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.


First off, define "work"? Does the program need to turn X amount of children into Doctors and Lawyers to "work" , or is keeping the vast majority out of jail a success?

The biggest criticism of head start focuses on the so-called 'drop-off' in elementary years is based solely on cognitive achievement, which data shows is less than half the equation for success. It also overlooks the fact that many Head Start children move from a nurturing early education environment into low quality elementary schools. &#8230; Yet, throughout the course of their education and lives, Head Start graduates tend to be more persistent in their education, more inclined to healthy behaviors and less inclined to be involved in criminal activity. Early Head Start and Head Start are programs on which to build and improve-not to cut.

A raft of long-term studies of Head Start reaches the same conclusion: *Head Start students graduate from high school, go to college and get jobs at higher rates than their at-risk peers who do not experience early childhood education. The fact is that Head Start does work for a vast majority of children.*


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Joe Klien should have done more rerserch, obviously.

He'll probably apply for a job at Heritage or Cato next where he belongs!! 

I believe Head Start and similar programs have and will fail as they insert the Central Government and Authority into failed households which only perpetuates failed households. 

The Federal Government can't and shouldn't fix poor parenting. The idea is as silly as Nation-building!!


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Thanks again for the clarification bernoulli. I still have some quibbles but I wont be tiresome and will await the arrival of Ask Bernoulli About Economics to post them! In the meantime much respect for injecting some high powered economic theory into our sartorial discussions. Shame it led to such an almighty row...maybe thats why they call economics the 'dismal science':icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mao and Stalin had economists too.

I believe the last thing they said was, "the problem with the last five year plan is we didn't build enough tractors nobody can afford!!" before they were purged.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> A raft of long-term studies of Head Start reaches the same conclusion: *Head Start students graduate from high school, go to college and get jobs at higher rates than their at-risk peers who do not experience early childhood education. The fact is that Head Start does work for a vast majority of children.*


Don't know about any raft of studies, but the official and most comprehensive study released earlier this year from the DHHS concludes otherwise:

https://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/1...uation-shows-no-lasting-benefit-for-children/


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Haffman said:


> Thanks again for the clarification bernoulli. I still have some quibbles but I wont be tiresome and will await the arrival of Ask Bernoulli About Economics to post them! In the meantime much respect for injecting some high powered economic theory into our sartorial discussions. Shame it led to such an almighty row...maybe thats why they call economics the 'dismal science':icon_smile_big:


Now who is being condescending?  But seriously, I am happy to contribute and discuss things. Academia is about debating your ideas, I have no qualms about people disagreeing with me (even when some "facts" are being discussed), but I like for BOTH sides to have an open mind. Do you see this happening in this thread? I am a scientist and have no problem being proved wrong, so there you go. Since we are now even on the condescending scale, maybe my OP is forgiven?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> Now who is being condescending?  But seriously, I am happy to contribute and discuss things. Academia is about debating your ideas, I have no qualms about people disagreeing with me (even when some "facts" are being discussed), but I like for BOTH sides to have an open mind. Do you see this happening in this thread? I am a scientist and have no problem being proved wrong, so there you go. Since we are now even on the condescending scale, maybe my OP is forgiven?


FWIW your original post is spot on correct. I would also add that while free trade does help all societies in the aggregate over time, dislocations and ensuing hardships do result for individuals and their families. Some government measures can soften these blows, though how much is a matter of careful prudence, but preventing these blows by preventing free trade is not desirable from the standpoing of either efficiency or morality. In this connection protectionism is difficult to justify from a moral standpoint. In the end it is about preventing a relatively poorer person from improving his standard of living by working harder for less money in order to preserve the comparatively higher standard of living of his richer competitor.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Don't know about any raft of studies, but the official and most comprehensive study released earlier this year from the DHHS concludes otherwise:
> 
> https://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/1...uation-shows-no-lasting-benefit-for-children/


Heritage Foundation? yeah....no bias there. 

How about a legit source - the Department of Health and Human Services_Findings__The study showed that at the end of one program year, Head Start had a positive impact on the school readiness of children. For children who received access to the program at three years of age, there were sustained improvements in social emotional and parenting outcomes, particularly improved parent-child relationships. Further, there were subgroups of children for whom sustained impacts were found through 1[SUP]st[/SUP] grade.

_


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> FWIW your original post is spot on correct. I would also add that while free trade does help all societies in the aggregate over time, dislocations and ensuing hardships do result for individuals and their families. Some government measures can soften these blows, though how much is a matter of careful prudence, but preventing these blows by preventing free trade is not desirable from the standpoing of either efficiency or morality. In this connection protectionism is difficult to justify from a moral standpoint. In the end it is about preventing a relatively poorer person from improving his standard of living by working harder for less money in order to preserve the comparatively higher standard of living of his richer competitor.


This is PERFECT.

All of a sudden, when corporate profits are at hand - Republicans gain a conscience, crying that is not moral to deprive a poor worker in China a job working 18 hours a day for pennies. But it isnt immoral to destroy an entire town in Tennessee or Wisconsin, by allowing outsourcing of an entire industry?

Selective Morality.....What a laugh.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jeffery Immelt is a closet Republican??


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Heritage Foundation? yeah....no bias there.
> 
> How about a legit source - the Department of Health and Human Services_Findings__The study showed that at the end of one program year, Head Start had a positive impact on the school readiness of children. For children who received access to the program at three years of age, there were sustained improvements in social emotional and parenting outcomes, particularly improved parent-child relationships. Further, there were subgroups of children for whom sustained impacts were found through 1[SUP]st[/SUP] grade.
> 
> _


Here is a link to the report's executive summary: 
I encourage interested readers to read the summary -- it is easily digestible -- and decide for themselves which characterization of the study's penultimate conclusion is fairer, mine or mrkleen's.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> This is PERFECT.
> 
> All of a sudden, when corporate profits are at hand - Republicans gain a conscience, crying that is not moral to deprive a poor worker in China a job working 18 hours a day for pennies. But it isnt immoral to destroy an entire town in Tennessee or Wisconsin, by allowing outsourcing of an entire industry?
> 
> Selective Morality.....What a laugh.


I assume you have a conscience, mrkleen, and you would do well to presume others do too. The idea that conservatives are less concerned for their fellow man than liberals is belied by hard data:

https://recalcitrantegg.blogspot.com/2011/03/giving-arthur-brooks-who-really-cares.html

A market economy does improve general standard of living over time, but that is not to say that its dynamic nature does not produce casualties. Petroleum production put whalers out of business. Blacksmiths fared poorly once the automobile became affordable. These are not abstractions. Real live families were hurt by economic change and forces beyond their control. They still are. One can fairly debate the proper role of government in providing a cushion for such families, but preventing the market forces from working is not a good option -- either economically or morally.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Here is a link to the report's executive summary:
> I encourage interested readers to read the summary -- it is easily digestible -- and decide for themselves which characterization of the study's penultimate conclusion is fairer, mine or mrkleen's.


Yes, please do read it. In fact, be sure to search for this section:

 The study shows that providing access to Head Start led to improvements in the quality of the early childhood settings and programs children experienced. On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Yes, please do read it. In fact, be sure to search for this section:
> 
> The study shows that providing access to Head Start led to improvements in the quality of the early childhood settings and programs children experienced. On nearly every measure of quality traditionally used in early childhood research, the Head Start group had more positive experiences than those in the control group.


Yes, and the following summary conclusion:

"In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits ...."

The bottom line is that the study concludes that for Head Start children do benefit significantly from the program initially, but that for children who enter as 3 year olds the sustained benefits beyond first grade are marginal and for children who enter as 4 year olds such sustained benefits were non-existent. That said, I encourage folks to reach their own conclusions. You can then decide which of us is presenting the more accurate description.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> A market economy does improve general standard of living over time, but that is not to say that its dynamic nature does not produce casualties. Petroleum production put whalers out of business. Blacksmiths fared poorly once the automobile became affordable. These are not abstractions. Real live families were hurt by economic change and forces beyond their control. They still are. One can fairly debate the proper role of government in providing a cushion for such families, but preventing the market forces from working is not a good option -- either economically or morally.


This whole "free market" tag line is a JOKE. Nothing more than a MYTH perpetuated by the Republican Party - a whole owned subsidiary of Wall St Cronies&#8230;with the Democrats not far behind.

Anything reminiscent of corporate welfare hardly seems to be "the invisible hand of the market" -- unless by invisible hand, people really mean "invisible hand_outs_ of the market."

An unregulated market will inevitably fall into monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies. With only a handful of companies in the market, they collude in a cartel fashion to control prices and bar any competitors from entering the market.

A regulated market, if properly implemented, can protect the public from predatory companies by enforcing fair competition. The ultimate goal would be to achieve perfect competition. This would reduce the barrier to entering the market, make it easier to get out and allow the public to drive market prices rather than companies trying to manipulate the public and the market.

And all of our buy low - at all cost, is coming to roost in the destruction of the manufacturing base of our entire country. Take a look at Wal-Mart, the bane of all small businesses and the absolute antithesis of "free market."

They bribe local governments to grant them taxpayer money to build their stores despite the fact that they don't need it. They use cheap foreign-produced products manufactured by people that are little more than slaves just to undercut all small businesses and push them out of the market. They also siphon a large amount of money out the local economy and move it to their shareholders and CEO's. So, little or no money comes into the local economy and most of it is coming out. This leaves swaths of people to live in poverty where there used to be stability. It kills off good-paying jobs and replaces them with lower-paying Wal-Mart jobs.

There is nothing free about that!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, and the following summary conclusion:
> 
> "In sum, this report finds that providing access to Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits ...."
> 
> We can pick and choose the parts of the study we prefer all day (I'll let you do that as I have work to do) or we can treat our colleagues like adults and let them read the report and make up their own mind.


Nearly EVERY student that qualified for Head Start - is from a poor neighborhood...with poor elementary schools. Saying they ENTER first grade in better shape than their non head start friends - yet are on the same level at the end of 1[SUP]st[/SUP] grade - SCREAMS that it is the elementary school that failed them, NOT Head Start.

But lets not let flawed research get in the way of a good story.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Nearly EVERY student that qualified for Head Start - is from a poor neighborhood...with poor elementary schools. Saying they ENTER first grade in better shape than their non head start friends - yet are on the same level at the end of 1[SUP]st[/SUP] grade - SCREAMS that it is the elementary school that failed them, NOT Head Start.
> 
> But lets not let flawed research get in the way of a good story.


Wouldn't a reasonal person, beholden to these facts, conclude that resources would be better placed in funding the elementary school then??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> That said, I encourage folks to reach their own conclusions. You can then decide which of us is presenting the more accurate description.


FYI~Your rational and well reasoned approach has not gone completely un-noticed.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Wouldn't a reasonal person, beholden to these facts, conclude that resources would be better placed in funding the elementary school then??


You have two miles of road. First is smooth, second is full of pot holes. Your solution to the problem of fixing the rough 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] mile - is to let the first mile go to SH!T - so you can divert all your resources to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP]? Doesn't that just move the problem down the road? (metaphorically and literally?)

Good solution. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> You have two miles of road. First is smooth, second is full of pot holes. Your solution to the problem of fixing the rough 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] mile - is to let the first mile go to SH!T - so you can divert all your resources to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP]? Doesn't that just move the problem down the road? (metaphorically and literally?)
> 
> Good solution. :icon_headagainstwal


Why is it always all or nothing with you??

The fist mile didn't just "go to ****." There is a reason for underacheivement for those that qualify for Head Start in the first place.

Let's identify what those reasons are specifically.

Is there a study that suggests the children come from stable, drug free homes with two parents that just happen to be temporarily down on their luck??


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> There is a reason for underacheivement for those that qualify for Head Start in the first place.
> 
> Let's identify what those reasons are specifically.


Go right ahead&#8230;.impress me with the depth of your knowledge of the economic and social struggles of inner city, minorities.

This should be good.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The lack of sustainability of Head Start gains is either endemic to Head Start or is traceable to deficiencies in primary education. I suspect it is probably the latter, but if that is the case one would normally suspect some lasting improvement even if diminished. But if one treats my suspicion as an assumption, then logically investments in Head Start are not sensible until we can fix those deficiencies. Our nation's inadequacies in primary education, especially in public schools, are hardly secret. Billions of dollars have been expended in trying to address those inadequacies, with little if any improvement. Liberals usually argue that the answer is spending even more billions. I doubt that such a strategy will work, but the question is not susceptible to easy proof. But that question need not be resolved in order to conclude that the Head Start expenditures are wasteful until primary education is fixed. Once fixed, we might find that Head Start is unnecessary. Or we might find that its outcome sustainability is endemic and therefore it is still ineffective. We cannot know until we solve primary education, and until we do the HHS study indicates that Head Start expenditures do not materially alter long term outcomes. It is not heartless to acknowledge such a conclusion, but it is stupid to throw money at problems ineffectively.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Go right ahead&#8230;.impress me with the depth of your knowledge of the economic and social struggles of inner city, minorities.
> 
> This should be good.


mrkleen, all of us have opinions on these social issues based in part, perhaps large part, on one's own life experiences. I'm sure you have yours as does WouldaShoulda, and as do I. If you have some special credential that makes you a greater authority, feel free to share; but otherwise why don't you tone down the self-righteousness and engage in adult discourse.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> This whole "free market" tag line is a JOKE. Nothing more than a MYTH perpetuated by the Republican Party - a whole owned subsidiary of Wall St Cronies&#8230;with the Democrats not far behind.
> 
> Anything reminiscent of corporate welfare hardly seems to be "the invisible hand of the market" -- unless by invisible hand, people really mean "invisible hand_outs_ of the market."
> 
> ...


+1

This has been proven time and again.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> mrkleen, all of us have opinions on these social issues based in part, perhaps large part, on one's own life experiences. I'm sure you have yours as does WouldaShoulda, and as do I.


...and I wasn't even looking for anecdotal "evidence" not even my own. I was looking for a study that suggests the children who qualify for Head Start come from stable, drug free homes with two parents that just happen to be temporarily down on their luck.

This is the composition of most needy Americans as portrayed by some on these pages, so I'm looking for evidence that is so.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> The lack of sustainability of Head Start gains is either endemic to Head Start or is traceable to deficiencies in primary education. I suspect it is probably the latter, but if that is the case one would normally suspect some lasting improvement even if diminished. But if one treats my suspicion as an assumption, then logically investments in Head Start are not sensible until we can fix those deficiencies. Our nation's inadequacies in primary education, especially in public schools, are hardly secret. Billions of dollars have been expended in trying to address those inadequacies, with little if any improvement. Liberals usually argue that the answer is spending even more billions. I doubt that such a strategy will work, but the question is not susceptible to easy proof. But that question need not be resolved in order to conclude that the Head Start expenditures are wasteful until primary education is fixed. Once fixed, we might find that Head Start is unnecessary. Or we might find that its outcome sustainability is endemic and therefore it is still ineffective. We cannot know until we solve primary education, and until we do the HHS study indicates that Head Start expenditures do not materially alter long term outcomes. It is not heartless to acknowledge such a conclusion, but it is stupid to throw money at problems ineffectively.


This is very well stated Mike...and I totally agree.

Only problem I have is that this evaluates Head Start on only one criteria....the improvement participants have academically. 
What about their improvement as citizens? If we found that they weren't much better in the classroom, but stayed out of trouble and grew up to be productive, well adjusted adults...would that still make Head Start "wasteful"?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

> An unregulated market will inevitably fall into monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies. With only a handful of companies in the market, they collude in a cartel fashion to control prices and bar any competitors from entering the market.





Jovan said:


> +1
> 
> This has been proven time and again.


An over-regulated market can bear the same fruit.

Big Banks and Insurance companies typically thrive on competition strangling regulations in cahoots with Big Government.



> A regulated market, if properly implemented, can protect the public from predatory companies by enforcing fair competition. The ultimate goal would be to achieve perfect competition. This would reduce the barrier to entering the market, make it easier to get out and allow the public to drive market prices rather than companies trying to manipulate the public and the market.


That's the perfect balance right there!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> mrkleen, all of us have opinions on these social issues based in part, perhaps large part, on one's own life experiences. I'm sure you have yours as does WouldaShoulda, and as do I. If you have some special credential that makes you a greater authority, feel free to share; but otherwise why don't you tone down the self-righteousness and engage in adult discourse.


Fair point Mike.

But lets not fool ourselves about Woulda. He has shown his true classless nature out here over and over.

He has no desire to come to any kind of consensus....nor, does he care about the plight of those less fortunate. He is simply here to throw gas on a fire....and then after achieving a sufficient conflagration, he backs off with a requisite "oh, why are you mad at me" post


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...and I wasn't even looking for anecdotal "evidence" not even my own. I was looking for a study that suggests the children who qualify for Head Start come from stable, drug free homes with two parents that just happen to be temporarily down on their luck.
> 
> This is the composition of most needy Americans as portrayed by some on these pages, so I'm looking for evidence that is so.


Well of course, there is no such study. The vast majority of needy Americans (leaving aside the definition of "needy," which is its own interesting debate) and impoverished at-risk children are concentrated in single parent households with illegitimate children. The rate of poverty does move somewhat with the economy, but that rate is nonetheless surprisingly stable when examined in cohorts. The single parent family cohort has grown dramatically over the past 50 years, with the result being a gradual statistical increase in poverty overall. This strongly suggests that the most effective way to combat poverty is to re-establish a social architecture whereunder children, sex and marriage are viewed as interdependent. Our social mores are proceeding in the opposite direction, and increased poverty is one result. There is little social consensus in favor of re-establishing the social architecture I describe, and perhaps little capacity to do so even assuming such a consensus. So instead, we substitute government programs for families, which may be our best practical option. But even so we should be thoughtful and rigorous in determining which programs actually deliver.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Jovan said:


> +1
> 
> This has been proven time and again.


I assume your moderator's hat is _*off*_ as you are expressing political and social opinions here.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well of course, there is no such study. The vast majority of needy Americans (leaving aside the definition of "needy," which is its own interesting debate) and impoverished at-risk children are concentrated in single parent households with illegitimate children. The rate of poverty does move somewhat with the economy, but that rate is nonetheless surprisingly stable when examined in cohorts. The single parent family cohort has grown dramatically over the past 50 years, with the result being a gradual statistical increase in poverty overall. This strongly suggests that the most effective way to combat poverty is to re-establish a social architecture whereunder children, sex and marriage are viewed as interdependent. Our social mores are proceeding in the opposite direction, and increased poverty is one result. There is little social consensus in favor of re-establishing the social architecture I describe, and perhaps little capacity to do so even assuming such a consensus. *So instead, we substitute government programs for families, which may be our best practical option. But even so we should be thoughtful and rigorous in determining which programs actually deliver*.


Completely agree. Only thing I would add is that most people calling for the end of programs like Head Start - leave it there, and dont offer any alternative. That is a sure way to further speed up the decline in social, moral and economic position in inner cities.

Soon enough - minorities will become the majority and this will become an even bigger issue. Not finding viable ways to improve the situation will not just effect the people involved (as someone like Woulda would have you believe), but will drag down our entire ecomony.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> This is very well stated Mike...and I totally agree.
> 
> Only problem I have is that this evaluates Head Start on only one criteria....the improvement participants have academically.
> What about their improvement as citizens? If we found that they weren't much better in the classroom, but stayed out of trouble and grew up to be productive, well adjusted adults...would that still make Head Start "wasteful"?


Many thanks, mrkleen. I agree that behavioral improvements would be valuable even without academic improvements, but actually the study examines the following outcomes: cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting, and the problem is that there was little if any discernable difference between Head Start participants and the control group when evaluated in grade school. As I mentioned, this may be because grade school is disasterous rather than because Head Start is ineffective, but that does not change the fact that the benefit was only temporary.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Completely agree. Only thing I would add is that most people calling for the end of programs like Head Start - leave it there, and dont offer any alternative. That is a sure way to further speed up the decline in social, moral and economic position in inner cities.
> 
> Soon enough - minorities will become the majority and this will become an even bigger issue. Not finding viable ways to improve the situation will not just effect the people involved (as someone like Woulda would have you believe), but will drag down our entire ecomony.


Poverty is less concentrated in minorities than it is in single parent families. That social condition is a significantly greater predictive variable than race -- something Moynihan foresaw in the 1970s. There is no doubt that the ensuing poverty generates enormous social strains that affect all of us, and not just in higher tax burdens caused by the resulting remedial programs. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical than liberals about the ability of either money or government programs to address this problem and are more likely to look to private charity as vehicles to recreate social expectations that favor marriage and intact families. Liberals tend to believe that deterioration of the American family is rooted in economic injustice and inequality (i.e., poverty leads to family disintegration), whereas conservatives tend to view poverty as a product of family disintigration. There is probably some truth to both views, but my experience strongly favors the conservative view. I accept the reasonableness of the liberal view; I just disagree with it.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I assume your moderator's hat is _*off*_ as you are expressing political and social opinions here.


Tut tut mr Kabbaz. This is the interchange, which, as you told me previously, isn't moderated...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Completely agree. Only thing I would add is that most people calling for the end of programs like Head Start - leave it there, and dont offer any alternative. That is a sure way to further speed up the decline in social, moral and economic position in inner cities.
> 
> Soon enough - minorities will become the majority and this will become an even bigger issue. Not finding viable ways to improve the situation will not just effect the people involved (as someone like Woulda would have you believe), but will drag down our entire ecomony.


It sounds as if you suggest that minority communities are incapable in solving their own problems to the detriment of all that we superior folk have made.

I hope I'm wrong.

Imagine, just imagine for a moment, if someone you even suspected of being racially biased (Which I am confident you are not) or worse, Conservative said such a thing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well of course, there is no such study. The vast majority of needy Americans (leaving aside the definition of "needy," which is its own interesting debate) and impoverished at-risk children are concentrated in single parent households with illegitimate children. The rate of poverty does move somewhat with the economy, but that rate is nonetheless surprisingly stable when examined in cohorts. The single parent family cohort has grown dramatically over the past 50 years, with the result being a gradual statistical increase in poverty overall. This strongly suggests that the most effective way to combat poverty is to re-establish a social architecture whereunder children, sex and marriage are viewed as interdependent. Our social mores are proceeding in the opposite direction, and increased poverty is one result. There is little social consensus in favor of re-establishing the social architecture I describe, and perhaps little capacity to do so even assuming such a consensus.
> 
> So instead, we *substitute government programs for families*, which may be our best practical option. But even so we should be thoughtful and rigorous in determining which programs actually deliver.


1) Yep. We can make smoking a pariah but can't encourage young women with no capacity to raise children successfully to place them in adoptive homes.

2) The horror!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well of course, there is no such study. The vast majority of needy Americans (leaving aside the definition of "needy," which is its own interesting debate) and impoverished at-risk children are concentrated in single parent households with illegitimate children. The rate of poverty does move somewhat with the economy, but that rate is nonetheless surprisingly stable when examined in cohorts. The single parent family cohort has grown dramatically over the past 50 years, with the result being a gradual statistical increase in poverty overall. This strongly suggests that the most effective way to combat poverty is to re-establish a social architecture whereunder children, sex and marriage are viewed as interdependent. Our social mores are proceeding in the opposite direction, and increased poverty is one result. There is little social consensus in favor of re-establishing the social architecture I describe, and perhaps little capacity to do so even assuming such a consensus. So instead, we substitute government programs for families, which may be our best practical option. But even so we should be thoughtful and rigorous in determining which programs actually deliver.


Disagreed!

It in no way strongly suggests that. It simply means that society had moved on and needs new support structures in stead of the 'family'.

I'd like to think that divorce is a pillar of modern society, since it implies that people have a choice and are not to be kept in some kind of marital slavery.

Furthermore; marriage has always been about the distribution of property, and inheritance. I think we've moved past that.

Saying that single parents are the root of poverty is a tad ridiculous. The problem is you have in fact not substituted family's with government programmes. You've just left the single parents and others with less 'family' related options to fend for themselves. In some countries, we've followed the decline of the traditional family with support structures, for better and for worse. But at least they are there.

You're just wishing that everyone else would just bite down and stay together in trad fams. Most often there's no single individual who really wants to do that himself. But it's still idealised.

You can't reach a consensus on 'bringing back' a social structure. Even if such social engineering where possible, noone rational would agree to that applying to himself. Or more to the point, to her self.

I'll not even comment on the sex part.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> He has no desire to come to any kind of consensus....nor, does he care about the plight of those less fortunate.
> 
> He is simply here to throw gas on a fire....and then after achieving a sufficient conflagration, he backs off with a requisite "oh, why are you mad at me" post


1) I object!!

2) Can I plead half-guilty??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Poverty is less concentrated in minorities than it is in single parent families. That social condition is a significantly greater predictive variable than race -- something Moynihan foresaw in the 1970s. There is no doubt that the ensuing poverty generates enormous social strains that affect all of us, and not just in higher tax burdens caused by the resulting remedial programs. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical than liberals about the ability of either money or government programs to address this problem and are more likely to look to private charity as vehicles to recreate social expectations that favor marriage and intact families. Liberals tend to believe that deterioration of the American family is rooted in economic injustice and inquality (i.e., poverty leads to family disintegration), whereas conservatives tend to view poverty as a product of family disintigration. There is probably some truth to both views, but my experience strongly favors the conservative view. I accept the reasonableness of the liberal view; I just disagree with it.


But you view the deterioration of the American family as a problem. Thats an assumption in itself. It also means that there's no comparative analysis, why view American poverty as something special. It's not.

There's very little distinguishing the US from Europe. You are attributing things to the American family that borders on pure myth. There's no magic to your system. In fact, it was originally imported.

And a higher tax burden is not an enormous social strain. You're at 25 %. No wonder your public schools suck. No wonder single parents have it tough. You only get what you pay for, and with the compound inefficiencies you need to keep at bay when running things on public funding, I'm surprised you're getting any public education at all for that money.

I marvel at your ability to discuss politics as a complete introspect. Everyone else benchmarks against other countries, other systems. And then they change their own.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> But you view the deterioration of the American family as a problem. Thats an assumption in itself. It also means that there's no comparative analysis, why view American poverty as something special. It's not.
> 
> I marvel at your ability to discuss politics as a complete introspect. Everyone else benchmarks against other countries, other systems. And then they change their own.


1) I mentioned aspects unique to American culture previously. That the deterioration of the American family is a problem is a fact found common by just about any viewpoint in our culture. What we argue about is what to do or not do about it.

2) When I visited Barbados recently I can't say how impressed I was with the dignity of the people there. Impovershed shanty towns were poor as any, but absent of the type of violence, public intoxication and ghettoization found in the US. If I see 15 kids in Baltimore on a corner together I walk (make that run) the other way. In Barbados they smiled and chatted. They were clean and as well spoken as they were groomed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> And a higher tax burden is not an enormous social strain. You're at 25 %. No wonder your public schools suck. No wonder single parents have it tough. You only get what you pay for, and with the compound inefficiencies you need to keep at bay when running things on public funding, I'm surprised you're getting any public education at all for that money.


Most public school funding in the US is provided by property taxes at the local county level. (Even more numerous than the 50 States) Our Federal Government can not possibly micro-manage such a gihugic sytem but it won't stop them from trying!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Most public school funding in the US is provided by property taxes at the local county level. (Even more numerous than the 50 States) Our Federal Government can not possibly micro-manage such a gihugic sytem but it won't stop them from trying!!


That's included in the 25%. Its total tax of GDP.

We have the same system, although here its municipality income tax that pays for it, rather than a property tax.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> No wonder your public schools suck.


What do you base this on, the media?
Seems like they worked pretty well for my kids, free 2 years of college during High School, state scholarship for the rest.
More money does not fix problems.
I will admit there is one major issue with the public schools, teachers unions and tenure, poor performing teachers end up being shielded.
As mentioned in numerous posts, I have my feet both in the US and Europe.
Bottom line you seemingly don't know squat about the US system, but you have many opinions.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

First, it is true that tax revenues as a per cent of gnp is lower in the US than most western European countries. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion of course. Second, the major reason for that is the lack of a VAT. Our income taxes are actually more robust than those in western Europe, and the wealthy actually pay a higher share. The reason for this is that the the higher rates kick in much earlier in western Europe. US taxes are actually overall more progressive, especially once the VAT is taken into account. . This is not to say that anomalies don't exist, however, especially among the super rich whose income is disproportionately from investments rather than earned income (i.e, they are not really high income earners at all). Most countries tax capital gains more favorably for two reasons: (1) some part of the gain is illusory -- just an inflation gain; and (2) gains cannot be taxed as a practical matter until recognized, and high rates lock in investments as investors are unwilling to pay a toll charge to capture their gain without good reason. This is not to say that there is not room to increase capital gain rates in the US, I suspect there is, but most economists agree that tying the rates to ordinary rates would actually generate less, not more, federal tax revenue -- a classic lose/lose.

Second, plainly Bjorn and I have very different understandings of the human condition. Perhaps it is because I prefer bourbon to soma.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrp said:


> What do you base this on, the media?
> Seems like they worked pretty well for my kids, free 2 years of college during High School, state scholarship for the rest.
> More money does not fix problems.
> I will admit there is one major issue with the public schools, teachers unions and tenure, poor performing teachers end up being shielded.
> ...


I thought that was actually an opinion posted by someone else than me above.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> First, it is true that tax revenues as a per cent of gnp is lower in the US than most western European countries. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion of course. Second, the major reason for that is the lack of a VAT. Our income taxes are actually more robust than those in western Europe, and the wealthy actually pay a higher share. The reason for this is that the the higher rates kick in much earlier in western Europe. US taxes are actually overall more progressive, especially once the VAT is taken into account. . This is not to say that anomalies don't exist, however, especially among the super rich whose income is disproportionately from investments rather than earned income (i.e, they are not really high income earners at all). Most countries tax capital gains more favorably for two reasons: (1) some part of the gain is illusory -- just an inflation gain; and (2) gains cannot be taxed as a practical matter until recognized, and high rates lock in investments as investors are unwilling to pay a toll charge to capture their gain without good reason. This is not to say that there is not room to increase capital gain rates in the US, I suspect there is, but most economists agree that tying the rates to ordinary rates would actually generate less, not more, federal tax revenue -- a classic lose/lose.
> 
> Second, plainly Bjorn and I have very different understandings of the human condition. Perhaps it is because I prefer bourbon to soma.


I don really agree regarding the vat, as those with more money consume more goods and services, almost all of which are in the highest vat bracket. Food are often in the lower bracket. Rent is vat free.

Agreed that capital gain rates need to be lower than tax on labour.

I think my post above goes to the actual fiscal input to the state (best measured by part of GDP) rather than if you equalise income. I'm generally not for great equalisation through progressive taxes, but I think perhaps you should evaluate your government output of services in the context of how much tax you pay in comparison to other countries. If you then discover that 1. you're paying about the same as they do in 3rd world countries, and 2. you're not happy with how the private options you've implemented are working out, then perhaps you should consider public options, which need to be financed.

Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> I thought that was actually an opinion posted by someone else than me above.


You posted it as your own statement, you didn't post is as someone else's opinion.
There is a a difference.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrp said:


> You posted it as your own statement, you didn't post is as someone else's opinion.
> There is a a difference.


'No wonder that' referred to the other posts, sorry if that was unclear.

I wouldn't mind if you said that 'insert gov op here' in Sweden sucked, even though you are not a swede.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps it is because I prefer bourbon to soma.


Hey now!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ... to destroy an entire town in Tennessee or Wisconsin, by allowing outsourcing of an entire industry?


At least in Tennessee the displaced may find work at Nissan or VW.

Soon, the only thing manufactured in Wisconsin will be Bitter Old Hippies!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> At least in Tennessee the displaced may find work at Nissan or VW.
> 
> Soon, the only thing manufactured in Wisconsin will be Bitter Old Hippies!!


Wisconsin still makes some great shoes!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> I don really agree regarding the vat, as those with more money consume more goods and services, almost all of which are in the highest vat bracket. Food are often in the lower bracket. Rent is vat free.


The VAT is a consumption tax and like all broad-based consumption taxes it is regressive. I am not aware of any debate on this from economists or tax scholars. It is true that the rich consume more than the general population, but they consume less as a percentage of their income. In other words, the rich save more of their income than the general population. Moreover, a VAT cannot accomodate graduated rates. Whether the US will eventually consider a VAT is hard to know. Right now the Republicans don't like it because they see it as a government money grab and the Dems don't like it because it would make the US system less progressive. The VAT will become a political possiblity in the US once the Dems figure out that it is a government money grab and the Repubs discover that it would make the US system less progressive.

There is some support in the US for a larger public sector, supported of course by greater revenues. But there is very little support for higher taxes except on "the rich," usually meaning high income earners rather than the actually wealthy. As the tax foundation study notes the US already relies more heavily on high income earners for revenue than any other industrialized nation. There may be room to increase rates a bit, but not enough to produce a meaningfully larger federal government. That would have to come from the vast middle class, and they have zero interest in it. None.

Americans are not Europeans. In general, they are not enthusiastic about having a larger government. Most Americans would not be all that happy in Europe. They view it as a nice place to visit, but they'd rather be Americans thank you very much. Yes, we have social problems, though arguably not as challenging as those of most western European countries.

America has both a libertarian and a communitarian impulse, but the latter historically was exercised more via the private non-profit sector and local government rather than a large federal government. That bias is still present in our country, though certainly not as pronounced as 100 years ago.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Liberals tend to believe that deterioration of the American family is rooted in economic injustice and inequality (i.e., poverty leads to family disintegration), whereas conservatives tend to view poverty as a product of family disintigration. There is probably some truth to both views, but my experience strongly favors the conservative view. I accept the reasonableness of the liberal view; I just disagree with it.


Perfectly stated Mike.....and I feel the same way....from the other side.

I can totally understand why conservatives believe the programs like Head Start - with their variable success rates, are not a good use of tax dollars. I actually agree that a big cause of the problems surrounding continued inner city poverty, crime etc - is the broken family unit. I just dont see how conservatives can't connect the dots that lead to this.

There are untold studies which show a clear, indisputable line:

Poor Schools + Poor basic skills + Nothing but low paying jobs + Neighborhoods with more Crime and less opportunity + Social and Emotional Stress on Families + Broken Homes + Children with little guidance + increasing income and opportunity gap = Rinse and Repeat.

How anyone can look at nearly any predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhood in any American city and not see the disadvantaged state of affairs is beyond me.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Can I plead half-guilty??


Can you plead half pregnant?

Classy as usual.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Perfectly stated Mike.....and I feel the same way....from the other side.
> 
> I can totally understand why conservatives believe the programs like Head Start - with their variable success rates, are not a good use of tax dollars. I actually agree that a big cause of the problems surrounding continued inner city poverty, crime etc - is the broken family unit. I just dont see how conservatives can't connect the dots that lead to this.
> 
> ...


Thanks, mrkleen. 
In response let me just say that conservatives and liberals arguably both connect most of the same dots -- but they see the interrelationships very differently.
Second, I don't think those differing interpretations are curable by familiarity with "predominately black and Hispanic neighborhoods in ... American cit[ies]." I assume you regard yourself as so familiar. I do too. I currently serve on the metro-Atlanta Salvation Army board and have served on the metro-Atlanta United Way board for most of the past 20 years, and that was after a nine year stint on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters board. Probably most importantly, I grew up on Chicago's south side. My views are grounded in my personal experiences, as no doubt are yours. I really am not interested in changing your interpretation of why the rinse and repeat. That is not a practical expectation of this type of forum. My major point is that the claim made liberals that their support of larger government demonstrates some type of moral superiority over conservatives is belied by the evidence and unfair. Conservatives don't disfavor most government programs directed toward poverty and similar social problems because they are indifferent to the poor; they disfavor such programs because they do not believe they work and instead believe they are usually counterproductive. Who is right or wrong will not be decided on this forum, but both sides would do well to assume the good intentions of the other.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Second, I don't think those differing interpretations are curable by familiarity with "predominately black and Hispanic neighborhoods in ... American cit[ies]." I assume you regard yourself as so familiar. I do too. I currently serve on the metro-Atlanta Salvation Army board and have served on the metro-Atlanta United Way board for most of the past 20 years, and that was after a nine year stint on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters board. Probably most importantly, I grew up on Chicago's south side.


I grew up in Charlestown, in Boston - working class white Irish&#8230;maybe you have seen it portrayed (very realistically) in The Town.



Mike Petrik said:


> My major point is that the claim made liberals that their support of larger government demonstrates some type of moral superiority over conservatives is belied by the evidence and unfair. Conservatives don't disfavor most government programs directed toward poverty and similar social problems because they are indifferent to the poor; they disfavor such programs because they do not believe they work and instead believe they are usually counterproductive. Who is right or wrong will not be decided on this forum, but both sides would do well to assume the good intentions of the other.


I do not have any way to judge the intensions of anyone, so I will take you at your word Mike. As for the workings of the modern day republican party - I cant see an ounce of good intention, as it relates to those on the lower rungs of society&#8230;and I cant see why anyone other than those in the upper income brackets, vote Republican.

When the Republicans took the House last year, instead of focusing on jobs, they went after jobless benefits, Medicare, abortion, union rights, and _National Public Radio_...and they also insisted on extending tax subsidies for big oil companies and tax breaks for the rich; even though the tax code has become dramatically less progressive since the 1960s, as tax cuts and loopholes have reduced a wide variety of taxes paid by the rich.

Not sure how you define "good intensions" - but dont see many coming from the right for anyone but the wealthiest Americans.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> Now who is being condescending?  But seriously, I am happy to contribute and discuss things. Academia is about debating your ideas, I have no qualms about people disagreeing with me (even when some "facts" are being discussed), but I like for BOTH sides to have an open mind. Do you see this happening in this thread? I am a scientist and have no problem being proved wrong, so there you go. Since we are now even on the condescending scale, maybe my OP is forgiven?


It wasnt meant as condescension more as a (feeble) attempt at wit. Yes lets call it even!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> The VAT is a consumption tax and like all broad-based consumption taxes it is regressive. I am not aware of any debate on this from economists or tax scholars. It is true that the rich consume more than the general population, but they consume less as a percentage of their income. In other words, the rich save more of their income than the general population. Moreover, a VAT cannot accomodate graduated rates. Whether the US will eventually consider a VAT is hard to know. Right now the Republicans don't like it because they see it as a government money grab and the Dems don't like it because it would make the US system less progressive. The VAT will become a political possiblity in the US once the Dems figure out that it is a government money grab and the Repubs discover that it would make the US system less progressive.
> 
> There is some support in the US for a larger public sector, supported of course by greater revenues. But there is very little support for higher taxes except on "the rich," usually meaning high income earners rather than the actually wealthy. As the tax foundation study notes the US already relies more heavily on high income earners for revenue than any other industrialized nation. There may be room to increase rates a bit, but not enough to produce a meaningfully larger federal government. That would have to come from the vast middle class, and they have zero interest in it. None.
> 
> ...


That makes sense. Although, exemptions and rate differentiation causes lower income segments to pay less vat (helped also by vat being cumulative on top of other taxes like excise tax) it would be regressive for the top income segment since they don't consume a larger part of their income. I see your point.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shocking - but NOT surprising.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I do not have any way to judge the intensions of anyone, so I will take you at your word Mike. As for the workings of the modern day republican party - I cant see an ounce of good intention, as it relates to those on the lower rungs of society&#8230;and I cant see why anyone other than those in the upper income brackets, vote Republican.
> 
> When the Republicans took the House last year, instead of focusing on jobs, they went after jobless benefits, Medicare, abortion, union rights, and _National Public Radio_...and they also insisted on extending tax subsidies for big oil companies and tax breaks for the rich; even though the tax code has become dramatically less progressive since the 1960s, as tax cuts and loopholes have reduced a wide variety of taxes paid by the rich.
> 
> Not sure how you define "good intensions" - but dont see many coming from the right for anyone but the wealthiest Americans.


Intentions are best evidenced by actions, and on that you do not need to rely on my word. https://recalcitrantegg.blogspot.com/...lly-cares.html. And let's take your examples one by one:

Jobs and jobless benefits: actually, studies show that generous benefits inhibit job creation. Most folks receiving benefits do not even start looking for work until the benefits are about to run out. Unemployment insurance has a legitimate purpose. I don't know any conservative who says otherwise. The difference between libs and conservatives is that the former cannot even entertain the question of how much is too much, since they can't conceive of the possiblity that benefits that are too generous can be counterproductive. My daughter has two friends receiving unemployment. Neither is interested in looking for work, and have admitted that they are perfectly comfortable getting paid for nothing. This does not mean that the earnest unemployed don't exist, of course, the key is that it is difficult to measure with confidence where lines should be drawn, especially when one side claims it is heartless to even consider the possiblity that there should be a line at all.

Medicare: While social security is in trouble, it is fixable. Medicare not so much, The costs are not sustainable based on what current recipients paid in and current workers are paying in now. Tax increases can help, but there are not enough high income earners to lean on them alone, and the middle class will not accept increased payroll taxes. Without such increases, cuts are inevitable except for political demagogues.

Abortion: For liberals the unborn somehow don't count as vulnerable. Indeed they don't count at all.

Union rights: And by that you mean the right of unions to circumvent a secret ballot. I think the recent legislation allowing unions to poll workers themselves rather than require a secret ballot is truly unfair.

NPR: And I should pay for this why exactly?

Oil company subsidies: Here we may have some common ground, but let's be clear, we are not talking about subsidies at all. We are talking about allowing companies to deduct actual expenditures in determining net taxable income as they incur these expenditures rather than as they are amortized for normal accounting purposes. Compared to other industries this is a significant benefit, and one can certainly criticize it. That said, it is hard for me to get all excited over it given that the economic incidence of the corporate tax is randomly distrubuted among consumers, workers and shareholders without regard to ability to pay. Why libs love this tax so much is a mystery to me and most tax professionals.

Tax breaks for the rich: first you don't mean the rich, you mean high income earners. At least to me, rich means wealthy. In this country few high income earners are really wealthy. In fact the net worth (i.e., wealth) of most Americans is less than their annual income, and that includes high income earners. We don't save enough obviously. Second, it is pejorative to refer to a decision to not raise taxes as a tax break, unless one assumes all income belongs to the state. As the Tax Foundation linked earlier makes clear, the US leans on high income earners for our tax revenue more than any other developed nation. This does not mean a priori that we should not lean on them some more, but suggesting that they are currently the beneficiaries of some type of "break" is just rhetoric.

Progressivity: Don't confuse graduated rates with progressivity. It is true that the rates are far less graduated, but progressivity has not changed all that much. This is because the 86 Act pretty much did away with the tax shelters that high income earners used to rely on to minimize their tax burden. The keys were the at-risk rules and passive loss rules. In exchange the top rate was reduced to 28%. You will note that the top rate is much higher today, but those anti-tax shelter rules are still in place. Also, one cannot compare nominal brackets due to inflation. The real tax burden costs have not changed that much for high income earners over the years (they have reduced some but not nearly as much as the graduated rate changes would suggest to the naive), though about 1/2 of all US households now pay no federal income tax (and that was true well before the current recession), and that was not true in the 1960s etc. The most beneficial "loophole" for the truly rich is the lower rate assigned to capital gains (something Buffett whines about as he declines to pay himself a salary taxable at ordinary rates in favor of earning favored capital gains), but this is not easy to fix for the reasons I explained in the post to Bjorn above.

Note that my responses do nothing to villify your liberal positions. I generally think they are mistaken for prudential reasons, but your uninformed bromides come across as self-righteous and really don't advance discourse. Don't get me wrong, I have conservative friends who do the same thing. It is so much easier to just throw out bumper sticker slogans, non-contextual pie charts, and claim moral superiorty by virtue of party than it is to actually converse.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jobs and jobless benefits: actually, studies show that generous benefits inhibit job creation.


That is patently FALSE.

In July, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee released a report entitled "Does Unemployment Insurance Inhibit Job Search?" The report *states "it is unlikely that extended unemployment benefits inhibit individuals' job search efforts. Simply put, even a low**‐**paying job is likely to provide more support than that offered by [unemployment insurance]."
*


Mike Petrik said:


> Medicare: While social security is in trouble, it is fixable. Medicare not so much, The costs are not sustainable based on what recipients paid in. Tax increases can help, but there are not enough high income earners to lean on them alone, and the middle class will not accept increased payroll taxes. Without such increases, cuts are inevitable except for political demagogues.


Again, wrong.

What is Medicare? It's single-payer coverage for the elderly. Other countries have single-payer systems that are much cheaper than ours - and also much cheaper than private insurance in America. So there's nothing about the form that makes Medicare unsustainable, unless you think that health care itself is unsustainable.

Of course, what the people who say things like "Medicare is unsustainable" usually mean is that it must be privatized, converted into a voucher system, whatever. The thing is, none of those changes would make the system more efficient - on the contrary.



Mike Petrik said:


> Abortion: For liberals the unborn somehow don't count as vulnerable. Indeed they don't count at all.


Leaving this aside for the moment - WHAT does this have to do with creating more jobs? Since the 2010 mid term - *Republicans have offered ZERO job creation bills - and SEVEN abortion related bills.

*


Mike Petrik said:


> Union rights: And by that you mean the right of unions to circumvent a secret ballot. I think the recent legislation allowing unions to poll workers themselves rather than require a secret ballot is truly unfair.


I agree, seems unfair to me. Does it seem unfair to you to sign a deal with a union, and then unilaterally vote later to strip those same unions of their right to collectively bargain? Probably not.



Mike Petrik said:


> NPR: And I should pay for this why exactly?


NPR gets $6.4m of taxpayer money per year. Federal expenditures for 2010 were $3.55 trillion. That means NPR represents 0.00018% of government expenditure. If you're looking to balance the federal budget, *NPR isn't a good place to start*.

The cost of NPR funding to the average American making over $100K a year - amounts to *3.3 cents*.



Mike Petrik said:


> Second, it is pejorative to refer to a decision to not raise taxes as a tax break


Pejorative? So wait. You just cried about paying 3.3 cents to find public broadcasting - yet 81.5 billion in cuts to those making $250K a year or more are pejorative? WHAT A JOKE.



Mike Petrik said:


> Note that my responses do nothing to villify your liberal positions. I generally think they are mistaken for prudential reasons, but your uninformed bromides aimed at people who disagree with you are tiresome truly.


And your attempt to defend decades of failed conservative principals is from a predictable playbook.

To paraphrase Bill Maher. I have to wonder what Republicans are actually good at.

Clearly it's not defense. 9/11 happened on your watch, and you retaliated by invading the wrong country, and you lost a 10 year game of hide and seek with , and you're responsible for running up most of the debt, which more than anything makes us weak. You're supposed to be the party with the killer instinct, but it was a Democrat who drew up plans to support the insurgency that overthrew and killed Gadhafi, and bullet in Bin Laden's eye.

Clearly its not the economy. When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that by the end of the decade we would have paid off the entire debt and had $2 trillion surplus. Instead we have a ten and a half trillion dollar public debt and the different in those two numbers is mostly because Republicans put tax cuts for the rich, free drugs for the elderly, and two wars on the layaway plan, and then bailed on the check, so so much for fiscal responsibility.

Sad, but true.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

This is my last post on this thread. It is simply not profitable to attempt discourse on complex subjects with someone who believes one study reaching a conclusion qualified as "likely" proves that a contrary conclusion is patently (PATENTLY, even) false. Especially when that study is really not a study at all, but a Congressional committee paper summarizing other studies, and then selectively citing them for the propositions they prefer, which is obvious if one actually read any of the real studies, some of which are mentioned below.

https://www.politiquessociales.net/IMG/pdf/dp3570.pdf

https://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/03/unemployment_be.html

https://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/unemployment_extensions/index.htm

https://www.theawl.com/2011/01/do-extended-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment-no

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/jpmorgan-chase-report-say_n_512130.html

https://www.nber.org/papers/w11760

The truth is that there is wide consensus that unemployment benefits induce unemployment. The disagreement is over how much and under what circumstances. It makes all the difference in the world whether the increased unemployment is tiny versus substantial, and as you might expect the true studies disagree. People tend to favor the studies that support their own biases, which is also to be expected. But instead of accepting these uncertainties and grappling with the attending uncertainties, you continue to resort to slogans and irrelvancies. I am embarrassed to have wasted my time with you.

P.S. In case no one has bothered to tell you, using caps for emphasis is rude and sophomoric.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> P.S. In case no one has bothered to tell you, using caps for emphasis is rude and sophomoric.


Love clowns like you Mike. You slip in insulating, condescending comments in post after post (see below), then when someone returns the favor - you protest.

What a LAUGH.



Mike Petrik said:


> Note that my responses do nothing to villify your liberal positions. I generally think they are mistaken for prudential reasons, but your uninformed bromides come across as self-righteous and really don't advance discourse.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> P.S. In case no one has bothered to tell you, using caps for emphasis is rude and sophomoric.


There is *nothing *rude or sophomoric about using capitals especially during an exchange on the internet. It's simply another way of to add emphasis to a point. (exactly like using bold letters for the same reason) You simply wish to be insulting and condescending.

Now I can see a point if an entire post was done in capitols but that's only my opinion,...

As if you consulted the unwritten rule book for the lemmings of the internet.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Intentions are best evidenced by actions, and on that you do not need to rely on my word. https://recalcitrantegg.blogspot.com/...lly-cares.html. And let's take your examples one by one:
> 
> Jobs and jobless benefits: actually, studies show that generous benefits inhibit job creation. Most folks receiving benefits do not even start looking for work until the benefits are about to run out. Unemployment insurance has a legitimate purpose. I don't know any conservative who says otherwise. The difference between libs and conservatives is that the former cannot even entertain the question of how much is too much, since they can't conceive of the possiblity that benefits that are too generous can be counterproductive. My daughter has two friends receiving unemployment. Neither is interested in looking for work, and have admitted that they are perfectly comfortable getting paid for nothing. This does not mean that the earnest unemployed don't exist, of course, the key is that it is difficult to measure with confidence where lines should be drawn, especially when one side claims it is heartless to even consider the possiblity that there should be a line at all.
> 
> ...


If your view was acted upon, we would have reduced benefits for unemployed. Fine. Stating that liberals cannot conceive that adding benefits reduces incentive is pretty ridiculous. From my point of view, you have very limited benefits in comparison with the rest of the industrialised world. Most unemployed want a job.

Changing the taxation to deviate from accounting standards, letting some companies deduct costs sooner than others, could very well be viewed as a subsidy albeit an indirect subsidy.

The abortion bit is just silly so why bother replying.

As for high income earners net worth, how do you track that? How do you keep track of what the highest earning part of society's actual net worth is?

As for 'libs' loving corporate income tax, what other tax do you feel they are overlooking? Excise tax? Sales tax? Capital gains tax?

You're saying that the middle class will not accept higher payroll taxes like its a mantra. Everybody else is doing it though. And there's really not much separating the guy at BMW in Germany from the guy at Chevy in the US.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...The truth is that there is wide consensus that unemployment benefits induce unemployment...


Ok Mike; lets end all unemployment checks immediately. Where are the jobs for these; what is it; 14 million unemployed? The jobs aren't there. The weekly jobs report clearly shows that. Employers aren't hiring at a rate that will significantly reduce the unemployment rate any time soon. The BLS report for Sept. 2011 shows 103,000 non-farm jobs created that month. Far too slow. So would you like to cut off all unemployment checks and see the reappearance of Hoovervilles?


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Shocking - but NOT surprising.
> 
> View attachment 3014


I got here late, and may be missing the entire point, but doesn't the other party control both the White House and the Senate? If a Democrat bill gets defeated by Democrats, who cares how the minority party voted?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

P Hudson said:


> I got here late, and may be missing the entire point, but doesn't the other party control both the White House and the Senate? If a Democrat bill gets defeated by Democrats, who cares how the minority party voted?


Yes you're missing the point. The Senate bill was defeated by Repubs who refused to add their votes to make the 60-vote margin needed to end debate and bring the bill to the floor for a vote. So the Repubs; the minority party; defeated the bill.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Yes you're missing the point. The Senate bill was defeated by Repubs who refused to add their votes to make the 60-vote margin needed to end debate and bring the bill to the floor for a vote. So the Repubs; the minority party; defeated the bill.


So they should have voted to end "debate" brought it to the floor, then voted against it along with their Democrat bi-partisans!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Ok Mike; lets end all unemployment checks immediately.


Again, it isn't an all or nothing proposition.

Unemployment "insurance" ceases to be insurance when the benefit exceeds the 26 week period the premiums and reserves were designed to provide a benefit for.

If unemployment remains chronic, former beneficiaries will be moved to public assistance they may then qualify for.

No starving minions, no murdered children, no Obamavilles.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Regillus said:


> Yes you're missing the point. The Senate bill was defeated by Repubs who refused to add their votes to make the 60-vote margin needed to end debate and bring the bill to the floor for a vote. So the Repubs; the minority party; defeated the bill.


Please excuse my ignorance of the US political system. From my vantage point, though, it looks like Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana voted against the bill. Furthermore, Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jim Webb of Virginia say they'll oppose the bill if it gets to a vote unless it sees major changes. Also, though only for strategic reasons, Harry Reid also voted against the bill.

Here is my outsiders analogy. Ford introduces a car. GM buyers don't buy it. Ford buyers don't buy it. So why blame the GM buyers when a Ford doesn't sell. Maybe it was just a bad car.

As you say, I am missing the point. But it doesn't sound like this is really about the Republicans. No doubt your political system's complexity is beyond me, but I am still left with the same question.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

P Hudson said:


> Please excuse my ignorance of the US political system...


Only the narrative matters and you, Sir, are getting in the way!!

Why do you hate teachers, first responders and children??


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Only the narrative matters and you, Sir, are getting in the way!!
> 
> Why do you hate teachers, first responders and children??


Why do you not?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Back in High School, many of us hated the old football coach and boys gym teacher...that badboy had a habit of using "Old Red" (a three foot long plank of wood, with 1" holes drilled through it, that was painted blood red) to encourage us to hustle more through our drills. Back then, the practice was labelled motivation...Today we would term it abuse! That big, old meanie!!  Does this count? :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Damn!!

My true identity has been exposed!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You're Professor Snape with a flowery tophat?


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Interesting read... Why does it seem as though one side is much more inflammatory than the other? I'm sure on a subconscious level this perspective is reinforced by my own beliefs and views.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

helo-flyer said:


> Interesting read... Why does it seem as though one side is much more inflammatory than the other? I'm sure on a subconscious level this perspective is reinforced by my own beliefs and views.


To play devil's advocate........

Why should we support increasing teachers pay? Shouldn't teacher act like any other "business" and adjust their value accordingly.

Teacher A: I can teach 120 students per year for $40k
Teacher B: I can teach 150 students per year for $40k

Who do you hire?'

or conversely

School board offers $40k to teach 150 students a year.
School board offers nothing to teach 120 students a year.......


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> You're Professor Snape with a flowery tophat?


I will not have you speak bad of Professor Snape...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't, especially after I read the whole series!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I don't, especially after I read the whole series!


He's much more interesting as a villain. A downright fashion icon.


----------



## helo-flyer (Nov 22, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> To play devil's advocate........
> 
> Why should we support increasing teachers pay? Shouldn't teacher act like any other "business" and adjust their value accordingly.
> 
> ...


Or how about this... Why do we pay both an substandard teacher and an excellent teacher $40k? Shouldn't the excellent teacher be making $50k while the substandard one makes 30k?...

The school board would perfectly within its rights to offer no compensation to teach 120 students a year. Just as prospective teachers would be within their rights to decline the job offer. Since the market value for teachers (lets call it $40k for sake of argument) is more than nothing, they would be unable to find teachers to fill the positions. If they increased there offer to $20k they would still be unable to fill the positions. If they upped it to $30k, still no takers. Once they enter the realm of market value, chances are they will not fill the position.

The above scenario does not reflect reality. School cannot offer nothing to teach 120 students/year simply because the market does not necessarily operate in the schooling system do to the fact that there is so much power in the hands of unions and the state. Schools throughout this country and most of the developed world are not set up to be businesses and are not run like businesses so any attempt to analyze them using a business model would be futile


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

helo-flyer said:


> Schools throughout this country and most of the developed world are not set up to be businesses and are not run like businesses so any attempt to analyze them using a business model would be futile


Especially when it conflicts the interests of the union!!

However, when it is demonstrated that qualified applicants are in short supply, their salaries should be increased.

I suspect that is not the case.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Especially when it conflicts the interests of the union!!
> 
> However, when it is demonstrated that qualified applicants are in short supply, their salaries should be increased.
> 
> I suspect that is not the case.


That's one of those tricky things. How do you prove qualified applicants are in short supply?

The demand is X (we "need" so many teachers per so many students), but are only willing to pay Y currently.

Once we get to the point of saturation, we start laying off teachers because they "make too much" in total compensation (benefits + pay), which makes it undesirable to be a teacher.

The risk vs reward to be a teacher is out of balance.

Nearly all of us have 20~ years of experience with teachers, giving us a jaded experience with the education process.

How many new teachers per year do we need (like new babies) for them to be self sustaining, if we want them to keep a classroom size at Z? It should be fairly simple math to figure out.

20 students, 1 teacher, after 20 years (400 students), each year (after the 20th) 1 of the students in theory replaces the teacher. That's a 5% requirement (gradeschool). At highschool, the requirement would drop to 1% since the teach can handle 5x as many classes (rotating schedule). Is this sustainable? Is 10 students per class sustainable? Is adding 4 additional years of education going to affect that? What about 8?

Say what you will about the government or military, they do know about sustainability. They've got computing that down to a science. I've never seen the Army run out of soldiers. Maybe we should start making a lot of these public jobs Military positions. Coach Adams, from Gym, becomes Sgt Adams, USAF. MRS. Rogers 3rd Science, becomes PO3 Rogers Science Spec3.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Say what you will about the government or military, they do know about sustainability. They've got computing that down to a science. I've never seen the Army run out of soldiers. Maybe we should start making a lot of these public jobs Military positions. Coach Adams, from Gym, becomes Sgt Adams, USAF. MRS. Rogers 3rd Science, becomes PO3 Rogers Science Spec3.


We have already begun to run our military like the Post Office or a day care. Running it as a Junior High School may not be far behind!!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> To play devil's advocate........
> 
> Why should we support increasing teachers pay? Shouldn't teacher act like any other "business" and adjust their value accordingly.
> 
> ...


The first step to merit based pay is understanding how to assess merit. Number of students taught is an unproductive strategy unless there's real meaning to the word "taught."

I don't think I've ever heard an individual with this point of view make a compelling case that they understand the structural problems of education in the US. Often they haven't experienced education outside of America, either, and so can't compare one education model to another, but simply apply a set of conceptual political values to the issue.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Jovan said:


> You're Professor Snape with a flowery tophat?


I can't find the original reference, but I think that the character you are referring to is the Child Catcher in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", played by the late Robert Helpmann. I should get out more......


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

"Does made in the USA matter?"


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I can't find the original reference, but I think that the character you are referring to is the Child Catcher in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", played by the late Robert Helpmann. I should get out more......


The resemblance is striking though, with the robes and all.


----------

