Obama Speech

[JVO]

So I guess Pres. Obama gives his big speech tonight. I heard Robert Gibbs say that he expects the end of the speech to be Reaganesque. Thank god for that. The Administration needs to stop telling us how crappy things are. We know things are crappy; you telling us over and over is doing nothing but making the stock market tank. Whatever it takes this speech tonight must end on a positive note, or tomorrow we will lose billions more dollars. If he can pull off a Reagan type performance where people don't actually feel like committing suicide after, then I think it will be a good first step to getting things on the mend.

I respect the fact that Pres. Obama is telling Americans the truth (refreshing change from the Bush Administration), but he needs to tell us that he is on it and the solutions are going to be quick and forthcoming. A Captain doesn't always know the answer, but he can never say that he/she doesn't know the answer or morale will go down the crapper. We need a pep talk tonight not a scolding. We need to believe that the President believes this stimulus package is actually going to work. He needs to convince not only consumers, but investors and banks. As long as all we hear is gloom and doom things are not going to get better, no matter what we do.

[slam]

newsweek just ran an article about the fine line they have to walk when talking about the economy: http://www.newsweek.com/id/185800

(the article is ok, but mr. alter gets a little breathless extolling how great obama is in it)

[JVO]

Here is a good start: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

That article you posted Slam was interesting, but I think the expectations from voters concerning Pres. Obama are much different than Senator Obama.

The economy is so fragile right now that every word that the Obama Administration says is having major ramifications. They need to be specific and positive. Whenever they get away from this things go down the dumper.

[zero2056]

I'm on board with all of the above except that if he doesn't think its going to work, passing leglislation for legislation sake is not the answer. Pelosi and Reid must be kept in check, or we'll all be paying 75% income taxes in 10 years.

This speech will fail unless there are specifics. A feel good sermon isn't going to cut it. Sounds like he's not going to have to take questions, which is good, because last time nobody knew the answers to the very logical questions being asked by the media.

[JVO]

I thought the speech went very well last night. I think the President made promises he can't possibly keep (like cutting the deficit in half and becoming the best educated country again) but it was a good speech. He may regret some of this come reelection time.

Gov. Jindel's speech on the other hand was Terrible.

[mrjohnchimpo]

yeah Obama's speech was pretty good, but again there's nothing there. It was all fluff and whatnot so people would clap. At least it's the first time I've seen him in his "sweet speaker, no substance" form since the election. Rousing speeches are always fun to watch.

also agreed on Jindal. I was hoping that he'd run in the next 4 or 8 years, but his speech skills need a major overhaul if he even wants to consider it. it's really too bad.

[JVO]

Something I really noticed about last night was that women are totally gaga about the President. I consider myself to be an amateur body language expert and it was really interesting watching the women as they spoke with the President. Speaker Pelosi was beaming like she just won Prom Queen. (BTW Speaker Pelosi and VP Biden looked like total clowns behind the President as they perused the speech looking for the moments where they could spring to their feet and pat their own backs...somebody needs to explain to them that less is more and that it is undignified for the leadership of Congress to act this way). I noticed that nearly every single woman who met the President immediately grabbed his bicep and squeezed. This is a very unusually aggressive bit of body language from a woman, normally only seen from drunkards looking for a night of fun. After Hillary Clinton did this she turned to her neighbor and looked like she was a 14 year old girl who just shook Elvis' hand. A friend of mine responded to this by pointing out that Hillary Clinton probably hasn’t looked at Bill like that for decades. Also I noticed 4 different women (and it could have been more) actually fondled the President's boob. I am seriously not kidding. If you go back and look at the walk to and from the podium, women were grabbing his boobs like he was a Hooters waitress. A woman grabbing a man's boob in public is really the most sexually aggressive bit of unconscious body language there is short of grinding on him or slapping his ass. I am sure the women didn't really think about it, which is why it is so telling and interesting. It also made me wonder how men would react if we elected a super hot girl for President. I wonder if their unconscious tells would be so strikingly obvious. Something tells me they would.

Anyway I just thought that was interesting.

[Lori Burger]

yeah Obama's speech was pretty good, but again there's nothing there. It was all fluff and whatnot so people would clap. At least it's the first time I've seen him in his "sweet speaker, no substance" form since the election. Rousing speeches are always fun to watch.

also agreed on Jindal. I was hoping that he'd run in the next 4 or 8 years, but his speech skills need a major overhaul if he even wants to consider it. it's really too bad.

Chimpo, please give an example of some 'substance' that you would have liked to hear.

[mrjohnchimpo]

any details at all would've been good. this discussion has been covered before about how Obama doesn't actually ever explain everything. he just points and smiles and liberals go all googly-eyed.

[Lori Burger]

any details at all would've been good. this discussion has been covered before about how Obama doesn't actually ever explain everything. he just points and smiles and liberals go all googly-eyed.

It seems to me that conservatives don't really listen to a word Obama says and simply respond that he's 'all style, no substance.' Yet, they never are able to substantiate this claim. In my opinion, the 'all style, no substance' argument lacks substance.

[mrjohnchimpo]

It seems to me that conservatives don't really listen to a word Obama says and simply respond that he's 'all style, no substance.' Yet, they never are able to substantiate this claim. In my opinion, the 'all style, no substance' argument lacks substance.

ok, that's cool. :shrug:

[JVO]

Chimpo, please give an example of some 'substance' that you would have liked to hear.

I'll take the bait on this one...How specifically, Mr. President do you plan on cutting the deficit in half in four years when you are proposing increasing spending on unemployment, energy, education, and health care? What programs are you planning on cutting? Defense spending? Homeland security? Social Security?

Also you propose on making teacher's wages/employment contingent on a teacher's success, how are you going to measure that? Standardized tests? Are you eliminating tenure? How are you going to the get the Democrats to agree to this? Aren’t teachers unions against this, and aren’t they some of your biggest supporters? Also specifically how are you going to encourage charter schools and technical colleges to open up? Tax cuts?

Also did you really propose that it is an inherent right for all people to attend college? Are you suggesting that the American Government take over the University College system? What if a person wants to go to Harvard instead of a state school? Is the Government going to pay for that? How? How are we going to take on this debt while at the same time decreasing the deficit?

Mr. President, you mentioned that a stated goal of the stimulus package is to find a cure to cancer in our time? How do you propose we do that? What doctors are getting money and how is that going to help? Why have we not been able to find a cure up to now, and what does this package do to increase our chances?

Mr. President, you mentioned solar and wind energy will be a beneficiary of this package, does it bother you that neither of these energy sources have been proven to be cost effective? How are you going to force energy companies to convert their systems to something that is, as of now, clearly not capable of the same load? How are we going to rewire the entire country to accept this new energy? Who is paying for this, the gov't or the private companies? How are we going to pay for this and how will we off set the price to reduce the deficit? How are we going to force companies to convert to a system, that as of now, will only lose them more money?

You claim that bank’s irresponsible lending is what created this mess, yet you are giving the banks billions of dollars to encourage them to lend again. Isn't this what got us in trouble in the first place?


Again, I thought it was a good speech and there is no way a President can actually give details on all of these subjects in an hour speech. Besides, he probably doesn't even know the answers to a vast majority of these questions. The fact that he has stated his priorities is the main thing and he did that very well. I also really like how he wraps liberal ideas in a cloak of conservatism. Very smart way to enlist the support of people who don't know the difference.

Still I am concerned about his deficit promise. It reminds me of Pres Bush Sr's "No new taxes" promise. I just don't see how it can be done. In the 2012 election we are going to see the sound bite from that speech a million times with the caption LIAR underneath it. I just hope that he doesn't lose because of it. Particularly since there is very little the President is going to be able to do about the deficit anyway.

[LoveDog]

...There is no way a President can actually give details on all of these subjects in an hour speech.

I completely agree with this statement. Everyone is expecting him to tell us how he's going to solve all the problems of the world.... and he's been in office for what, a month? Give the guy a break, he's only human.

He's giving us as many details as he can, while trying to keep American morale as high as it can be in such trying times. If yesterday he would have said exactly which huge programs he's planning to cut, the people who are already depressed about the economy might have something else even bigger to bitch about....and then the riots start and we slip into anarchy. Yes, that escalated quickly, but you know what I mean.

He did say to checkout recovery.gov. I'm sure there have to be at least some details on that page.

[Lori Burger]

I completely agree with this statement. Everyone is expecting him to tell us how he's going to solve all the problems of the world.... and he's been in office for what, a month? Give the guy a break, he's only human.

He's giving us as many details as he can, while trying to keep American morale as high as it can be in such trying times. If yesterday he would have said exactly which huge programs he's planning to cut, the people who are already depressed about the economy might have something else even bigger to bitch about....and then the riots start and we slip into anarchy. Yes, that escalated quickly, but you know what I mean.

He did say to checkout recovery.gov. I'm sure there have to be at least some details on that page.

Right. Not only is Obama 'only human,' but what president DOES divulge those kinds of details in an address like the one he gave last night?

I get your point though, JVO. Some of his ambitions are lofty.

By the way, I am a teacher who totally agrees that teachers should be paid on merit. However, no teacher who has his/her students' best interests at heart would ever think that the best way to assess teaching is through student performance on standardized testing. Teachers are actually evaluated through a lesson observation process: this would be more pertinent. I know you didn't ask and probably aren't too concerned, but I had to share. I feel like my role in my students' lives far exceeds that of preparing them to take tests :)

[slam]

well, it looks like the speech had the desired effect: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4826615.shtml

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/02/25/image4826732.gif

[mrjohnchimpo]

Kenneth the Page responds to Bobby Jindal :lol:

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/93687/Video_Kenneth_the_page_Jack_McBrayer_responds_to_B obby_Jindal

[zero2056]

Since I don't sleep anymore on the weekends, I actually watched Meet the Press on Sunday. Even the democratic guests were giving him a bit of a reaming. In-fighting after a month? This could get interesting. One talking head stated "I believe what we're seeing is Obama becoming just another Washington politician".

Anyway, posting anything anti-Obama on here is pointless, but talking politics with just about anyone these days is, so why the hell not.

You cannot spend your way out of debt.

The only way our deficit is fixed is for more taxable business to occur within the US, our spending cut, or taxes to be raised.... on everyone. Obama's honeymoon will be over shortly when people realize the President (though they'll still blame him) cannot control and only marginally influence economies.

For the US government to spend more right now is like telling GM that hiring more people would be good for its corporate structure and longevity as a company. Make any sense to you? Me either. We should be proposing budget cuts and tax hikes.

He's got four years..... actually do something to help out our situation, not worsen it. If lord and savior Obama actually cares about the people and the Country, as he states, then making some moves that may not be popular and may risk him being re-elected in 2012 would be nice.

The hypocrisy of Barney Frank, Pelosi, and whoever else who sits on Capitol Hill (left or right winger... harder for me to name any prominent right wingers at the moment; are there any?) to point a finger at private enterprise, and then propose our largest budget deficit ever would be humorous to me if it weren't so damn depressing. I love how the 10 year plan has us ONLY at a mere annual $500 billion deficit in 10 years.... whoopty fucking doo. Is that the best we can do? If so, we're done.

I'll just be happy to be able to say I didn't vote for this entire scenario in 4 years. Republicans will reclaim additional seats in the Senate and House in 2-years in mid-term elections, and I hope we have a fiscally conservative, but overall centrist choice in 2012 to vote for. It won't be Obama. He'll catch a bad rap for the declining economy, elevated tax rates and people will be pissed again and vote for anything that isn't democratic blue.

Oh ya, and I went to recovery.org... if anybody can find anything of SUBSTANCE on that waste of cyber space, let me know. Maybe I'm going blind in my old age too.

He'd have been better off playing 2 girls 1 cup on an endless loop.

[slam]

In-fighting after a month? This could get interesting. One talking head stated "I believe what we're seeing is Obama becoming just another Washington politician".

well, of course the talking heads have to stir stuff up. and i'm certain that some democrats aren't happy with obama's policies thus far. but considering the impressive list of major accomplishments obama has pulled off in under two months in office, it's clear that obama has his party in order.

You cannot spend your way out of debt.

you can invest your way out, though. time will tell whether this spending pays off, eh?

The only way our deficit is fixed is for more taxable business to occur within the US, our spending cut, or taxes to be raised.... on everyone.

why would it be necessary to raise taxes on everyone? why not kick the capital gains tax up to 20%? few people are making money on capital gains in this market anyways, so let's do it now.

I love how the 10 year plan has us ONLY at a mere annual $500 billion deficit in 10 years.... whoopty fucking doo. Is that the best we can do? If so, we're done.

well, it's not like obama started off in great shape here. you have to recognize he was dealt a pretty shitty hand. still, you should admire the fact that, for the first time in seven years, the WARS we're fighting are finally included in the budget. none of those stupid emergency funding requests anymore. now, we can tally the real cost, right along with everything else. certainly hard to balance the books when you don't totally ignore one of your largest expenses.


Oh ya, and I went to recovery.org... if anybody can find anything of SUBSTANCE on that waste of cyber space, let me know

from the FAQ on the site:


Q: I heard I'd be able to track recovery funds. Why can't I do that?
A: You aren't able to track funds yet because we have not yet started receiving information from Federal agencies on how they are going to allocate the money. It takes a little bit of time for them to make sure your money is going to be spent wisely. Right now, the site features an overview of the law and an explanation of what it is intended to accomplish. You will have access to data as soon as we begin receiving it from agencies.

[JVO]

This whole conversation totally depresses me; particularly because so much of it is way over my head.

I watched Meet the Press and Face the Nation yesterday too, and nobody knows what in the hell this entire stimulus is going to do. I did think it was interesting that many of the Democratic panelists were talking about how Pres Obama had an opportunity to end the Republican Party if he had been more moderate with his budget. Instead, because of all of the typical liberal spending, he probably has just invigorated them.

One thing I am sure of is we absolutely can not raise the Cap gains tax. The market tanking is absolutely killing people who are nearing retirement and invested in a 401K. I think it is easy to think of Wall Street investors as rich people, but that is not the case. Many are people who are just hoping to make enough money to be able to retire someday. The collapse of the stock market must be stopped or we are going to have an entire generation of elderly people who can not retire.

I think it also important to understand that rich people are the ones who are going to get us out of this mess, not the poor people. We need to do as much as we can to give rich people the motivation and confidence to start investing and creating new companies. That is something that is not happening right now.

[Soul Queen]

From a Research standpoint, in the stimulus package there is additional funding opportunities for scientists/professors across the nation.

Certain agencies are receiving additional funding. This means that budgets that have been cut will get their funding back. This means scientists, post docs, technicians can keep their jobs. Students can stay in school (additional fellowship money). This in turn means they can pay their mortage, bills, buy stuff to stimulate the economy.

It is a MAJOR deal for alot of agencies to receive additional funding. Working for a small institute I can hope to see immediate results. At least by the end of 2009.

I think it is way to early to bitch about the recovery package. It has been a few weeks. It takes time for results. Anyone who expects something instantaneously is foolish.

[Soul Queen]

On a different vein of thought...at what point do you think it would take the US to conceed our economic system is broken?

I'm not an economics expert but doesn't it seem silly that the value of money is based on how much confidence we have in it? "I feel great about the dollar today, so it should be worth more..."

It seems if we keep basing our future on the Stockmarket and how confident people feel, things will continually be broken. Because really, aren't we basing our financial future on how a certain select few feel?

I'm not sure what an alternate solution to the problem will/should be.

[zero2056]

1) Party politics is the primary problem not anything I'd be touting. Democrats challenging each other rather than nodding and signing the legislation they just approved would be wonderful. I'd bet $100 not a single one could tell you exactly they just approved, except for maybe the authors of the bill. I read an interesting this article that the new budget is expected to get some decent resistance from moderate democrats. These people realize that this is too much money to be running a deficit. I hope they shove it down cheerleader Pelosi's throat. I'm not sure if they have the votes to get it amended. If just a few in the senate are against it, then it'll never make it to Obama for signature, which is what I'm hoping for.

2) Invest my way out by doing what? Amongst the line items I could find were social programs and propping up state budgets? Infrastructure... maybe, but I've also heard things like putting parks and tennis courts in inner cities (sounds like a GOLD MINE). Define something we're investing in that will provide for a positive gain in the future? The only thing I can come up with that would provide an immediate positive impact is to somehow stabilize the mortgage market.... but what is a fair and equitable way to do that? Should we reward dumbasses who bought too large of a house because they were simply approved for too large of a loan? Why don't we just let the punishment pound those who have no self-restraint? Corporate and individuals should both be allowed to fail if bad choices were made. Capitilism works if government stays out of the way... it doesn't work if you know you have big brother to pick you up, dust you off, and put you back on your feet.

Investing in scientific research is fine, but how does that help the people that really need the help? Professor Wang from Whatchamacallit University isn't probably needing much help at the moment from a pay standpoint.

3) Well, riddle me this: How do you make money by raising capital gains taxes on people who are selling things for capital losses? If you're selling now its for a tax write-off or you inherited the stock from grandma because we're at some hardcore low stock levels at the moment. Yea. I sold stock this year. I sold it to recognize a loss on some dogs and increase my tax refund. Where are you going to make money off of a normal joe like me with capital gains hikes in our current environment. Not gonna happen.

How do you not get around raising taxes on everyone? America already has a progressive tax system. Before you immediatley dismiss that because its what we've been spoon fed every day for the past two years, go ahead and do some research and discover that the wealthiest companies and individuals already support our increasingly gov't burdened society.... and they probably benefit from most of the social programs their funding THE LEAST. Gov't should be there to protect us (FDA, National Security, Etc.), organize (Law and Order) us, and then after that, get the hell out of the way.

I don't get why people do not understand that if you want to head towards a socialized america (like some countries in Europe) you will have elevated European tax rates? Heads out of the clouds, and back down to reality, please. Do you want nationalized health insurance? If you raised your hand, you want and approve of higher taxes..... for everyone. Now take every line item that has been tossed around and ask yourself if that's a tax hike or decrease. Finding more for the cause of a tax increase?

As to JVOs point, Capital Gains would have a negative impact on retirees, but to a much lesser extent at the moment since we're at 1986 stock levels.

4) Hey. Cut out the wars. I'm ALL for it. No arguments. If I don't have to hear about Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, you name it for 10 years, I'd be tickled pink. But save that money... DO NOT reallocate those funds that are putting us (in this case, simply increasing our deficit) in a deficit to something like National Healthcare when the entire country is sucking wind. Cut it out completely. To not show a way back to a balanced budget in 10 years is completely irresponsible to me. Let's challege ourselves and aim for 5 years. 10 years???? How much longer til China, Japan, whoever, just cuts us off. I don't want to hear any bullshit from our politicians that it "cannot be done". Yes it can, but there has to be cuts across the board to government. Are they going to hurt? Yep. Like a big bawlin' bitch too! If government programs are going to grow, it needs to happen with increased tax revenues to support. Are we so deluded that we think we can perpetually run a deficit?? Do we not realize what the ultimate end game is for that (insolvency, hyperinflation, destabilization)? Are we that short sighted? Why am I the only one pissed off about this??

Yep. He was dealt a shitty hand. But to get up and be proud about stating in 10 years we'll only be in the hole $500 billion a year baffles me. Better yet, it fucking got applauded (raucous applause)!?

And about these wars that we all like to bitch about.... Let's say Gore won in 2000 (which he may or may not have actually done for you conspiracy theorists)... do you not think that some military action would have been required by the general populace when the twin towers got hit? Are we ALL forgetting that it was unilaterally approved to go to war?? Do you not think increased military spending would have occurred whether we flexed it during a war or not at that particular time? Do you not think non-response would have lent to additional agression seeing us as a soft target? We haven't been hit since 2001 on our own soil. Maybe you don't. Opinions are opinions, and we're not all going to agree.

5) I'm sorry, was that detail you posted? It looked like a link to a bullshit excuse as to why there is nothing on the recovery website. I believe he said in his speech something along the lines of "blah blah blah... for more information go to Recovery.gov... blah blah blah". From what he said I thought he meant DETAIL, and yet.. nothing.

Fine. Let's track where the money goes. Is there not a plan for where and what specifically its going to be spent on? This completely goes against anything I've ever been taught from a business perspective... how do you approve such a large sum of money without any sort of guidance on what its going to be used for, how its going to help make more money in the future, or how its going to help allieviate immediate problems without creating just an increased demand for it in the next fiscal budget.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the site... maybe its actually meant to track the increased spending of our government. Let's call it the Deficittrackerwithoutaplanomgwerefucked.gov

*************

Without a doubt, it is too early to evaluate the stimulus package, but how do you evaluate something when none of us have anything to measure it against? Even if it is successful, will we know it? What are the expectations? I've seen NOTHING set out as to what it is to accomplish.

[zero2056]

On a different vein of thought...at what point do you think it would take the US to conceed our economic system is broken?

I'm not an economics expert but doesn't it seem silly that the value of money is based on how much confidence we have in it? "I feel great about the dollar today, so it should be worth more..."

It seems if we keep basing our future on the Stockmarket and how confident people feel, things will continually be broken. Because really, aren't we basing our financial future on how a certain select few feel?

I'm not sure what an alternate solution to the problem will/should be.

You classify this as a US economy, but the entire world economy is based off of this... and the US didn't exactly create it. The economy was kicking prior to 1776, it just looked a whole helluva lot different. Keep in mind the US didn't really become a super power until the 1900's. Fiat money (currency not directly convertible to gold or something else) has been around for a long time and is used by just about every country, unless they're bartering in bananas or coconuts. And some countries rightly or wrongly peg their currency to the US Dollar, and then brand it whatever they want to call it.

Also, though a large portion of the wealth is in the US, there are an ever increasing number of foreign billionaires who can manipulate the price of goods and services in the world market.

I have a customer that is convinced that the world needs to go back to a gold standard. I'm not so convinced. It would keep inflation in check for sure. I think the main problem would be deflation (which would make most of our debts insurmountable - home mortgage, etc.) and it would make the normal day to day use for gold (jewelry, manufacturing) cost prohibitive.

[JVO]

I agree that it is way too early to come to any conclusions about the stimulus package. My point was more a political point than an economic one.

This whole thing is very difficult for me to wrap my arms around. Obviously I am/was a huge Obama supporter, but I am also a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately, at this point in time you can't be both.

To your point SQ about the increase in research funding and whatnot, I don't disagree that this is a valuable way to spend the govt's money (if the gov't has the money to spend), but it DOES NOT help the economy. It may secure the jobs of research assts and professors (who are highly educated, very employable, and make decent money already), but it does not help the people who need the money most. Let's say your budget is increased $10,000,000, which means that $10,000,000 was taken away from tax payers (80% of it from the richest people). I guarantee you that the $8,000,000 would raise much more money for the govt' in tax revenues if it was spent by the richest people to invest in the stock market or better yet expand jobs. If that $8,000,000 was reinvested in corporations it would mean more jobs, more tax revenue, more social security revenue, more personal property tax, more personal investments, more people with money to buy cars and homes and iPods and whatever other crap people spend their money on. Even if it wasn’t invested in jobs, it would still help the economy by giving banks more capital to use in funding mortgages and car loans. I guess giving money for research to me under these circumstances, is like a home owner spending $10,000 on building a new kitchen, when they can't even afford to make the house payments. A new kitchen would be beautiful and nice, but it is a luxury that we simply can't afford right now.

Also I think it is really important to understand that Pres. Bush was just as guilty of reckless spending as Obama is, he just spent it on different things.

The only reason why I brought up the stock market is because I am in charge of facilitating our 401K’s at work and I can tell you that there are a number of employees who have had up to 70% of the retirement savings disappear. These are not doctors, lawyers, and bankers, they are dishwashers, prep cooks, and janitorial staff who have worked their asses off their entire lives just hoping that they would be able to have enough to retire only to see it completely evaporate at a time when they need it the most. The stockmarket isn’t the be all and end all, in fact I think other factors such as Unemployment, Foreclosure rates, Inflation, and GDP are more important indicators of the overall health of the economy than the stockmarket, but to see between $5 and $10 trillion dollars disappear forever is a very scary sign. The President must do something to help investors gain some confidence or nothing the gov’t does is going to help.

[Soul Queen]

Investing in scientific research is fine, but how does that help the people that really need the help? Professor Wang from Whatchamacallit University isn't probably needing much help at the moment from a pay standpoint.

Professor Wang is a person in the US just like the rest of us.
We all are in this together. With the credit freeze, most universities (that I know, and I would suspect) in the US are not hiring anyone unless its absolutely required.

There are some organizations where the people are paid based on the federal funding they receive. So if their budgets are slashed, this affects their salary. If they receive no funding then this means they have to find another place to work. Who is hiring in this day and age? Its a tough job market. There are alot of people in the US right now that are being asked to take a pay cut. Not just federal employees.
When individuals are asked to close down their labs, this means alot of people are now out of work.

With additional money, this provides additional jobs for a variety of people, who then support our goods and services within the US.

I think I'm with your client on the gold based system. Guess I would need to read up on it abit more.

I'm with you on the feeding money on failed businesses. It's a stupid idea. I think sometimes its okay to let some companies die. Otherwise we are stuck with outdated goods and services, where we could have been better off with novel commodities.

I'm okay with taxing more in order to provide health care for all. Then I would at least understand on a moral ground where my money goes.

[Soul Queen]

To your point SQ about the increase in research funding and whatnot, I don't disagree that this is a valuable way to spend the govt's money (if the gov't has the money to spend), but it DOES NOT help the economy. .

I'm going to go all out and say you are 100% INCORRECT on this.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the number of people who are employeed through federal research dollars. If these people don't have jobs, how can they live in the US?

Most likely these individuals are ones with mortgages, who will then go into default, adding to the economic burden.

I guess I don't see how adding more jobs is NOT helping the economy. Isn't that the goal, to get people out there and spending?

[Soul Queen]

.

To your point SQ about the increase in research funding and whatnot, I don't disagree that this is a valuable way to spend the govt's money (if the gov't has the money to spend), but it DOES NOT help the economy. It may secure the jobs of research assts and professors (who are highly educated, very employable, and make decent money already), but it does not help the people who need the money most. Let's say your budget is increased $10,000,000, which means that $10,000,000 was taken away from tax payers (80% of it from the richest people). I guarantee you that the $8,000,000 would raise much more money for the govt' in tax revenues if it was spent by the richest people to invest in the stock market or better yet expand jobs. If that $8,000,000 was reinvested in corporations it would mean more jobs, more tax revenue, more social security revenue, more personal property tax, more personal investments, more people with money to buy cars and homes and iPods and whatever other crap people spend their money on. Even if it wasn’t invested in jobs, it would still help the economy by giving banks more capital to use in funding mortgages and car loans. .

I also disagree that it would make more money in the stockmarket. Isn't that why we are in the situation we are in? What if people had just put their money in a savings account. It is backed by the government. They would have lost nothing. I think too many people thought of the stock market as an easy way to make money. The thing about it is that you can just as easily lose your money. That $8,000,000.00 could just be flushed down the drain AGAIN, if thats where your putting it.

It would help the economy if the banks were giving out more mortgages and loans...but are they? Where is the money going? We have given the banks a shit ton of money, every day I read how the economy is getting worse. They don't seem to be extending more credit to reliable instititions such as Universities or Hospitals. I see this firsthand.

[JVO]

Professor Wang is a person in the US just like the rest of us.
We all are in this together. With the credit freeze, most universities (that I know, and I would suspect) in the US are not hiring anyone unless its absolutely required.

There are some organizations where the people are paid based on the federal funding they receive. So if their budgets are slashed, this affects their salary. If they receive no funding then this means they have to find another place to work. Who is hiring in this day and age? Its a tough job market. There are alot of people in the US right now that are being asked to take a pay cut. Not just federal employees.
When individuals are asked to close down their labs, this means alot of people are now out of work.

With additional money, this provides additional jobs for a variety of people, who then support our goods and services within the US.

I think I'm with your client on the gold based system. Guess I would need to read up on it abit more.

I'm with you on the feeding money on failed businesses. It's a stupid idea. I think sometimes its okay to let some companies die. Otherwise we are stuck with outdated goods and services, where we could have been better off with novel commodities.

I'm okay with taxing more in order to provide health care for all. Then I would at least understand on a moral ground where my money goes.

I don't have anything against Prof. Wang; but funding federal research doesn't help the economy. It helps with the research at the expense of the economy. The same money that could be used to help 1 Prof. Wang could be used to help 10 Joe Blows. And Joe Blow needs the money much more. Prof. Wang makes $80,000 a year and probably has more degrees than you can shake a stick at. If Prof Wang losses his job he can probably live off of savings long enough to find another job, especially considering how highly educated he is. Even if he had to take a pay cut, Prof. Wang would easily be able to get a job teaching in high school, or getting a job with a pharmaceutical company or something. Joe Blow on the other hand, has only a high school diploma, no health insurance, and will not only not pay taxes, but will suck more money out of the government through unemployment, food stamps, medicade and SSI. This represents a huge blow to Joe Blow (he he he!) and to the economy at large. I am not saying that federal funding should be cut (although I think federal funding research is a bit of a fraud anyway...we have spent nearly a trillion dollars on federal funding for cancer research in the last 20 years and we still are no closer to finding a cure that I can tell.) only that instead of increasing the funding for places that don't directly create jobs, we should focus on helping Joe Blow. Frankly I am not concerned about Prof. Wang. If Prof. Wang losses his job he may have to sell off the BMW and put off buying the new boat, if Joe Blow losses his job he will have to put off eating.

I also don't have a problem in paying more in taxes, but I do have a problem doing so (not that I have to worry since I probably won't make $250K in a year in the near future) when the money is not going to help the economy, but instead is going to be given to Prof. Wang to create more self absorbent toilet paper. I would much rather have money go to infrastructure (which a lot of it is) and the public school system than to supply a greedy bunch of intellectuals who make up work to do just to justify their budgets. (Ok that was probably a little harsh :p). If Prof. Wang losses his job it is obviously not good, but there is much less chance of him becoming a slave to the government welfare system draining money from our limited coffers for years to come and making a bad situation much worse. I guess that is my point.

I totally agree about the banks loaning the money. Are they? Who knows? I think Bush was so panicked about the economy that he rushed in to law a bill that he really has no understanding of. I am afraid the Democrats and Pres. Obama have just done the exact same thing. I can't believe there is a single person in Congress, or President Obama who even begins to understand the recent legislation. I fear that we are going to be forced to repeat history.

The stock market isn’t evil, it is just corrupt. You can literally make an investment using make believe money on whether the price of sugar will increase by more or less than a dime in the next fiscal quarter. That is what got us in trouble is all the crazy future bets that investors made. That’s what created the whole oil spike last year. It had almost nothing to do with the actual price of oil, and much more to do with the hedge investors. I do think that the Democratic Congress will work to get rid of a lot of that corruption. They have to be careful though because if our stocks drop too much more, we really are going to be in a depression.

[Soul Queen]

People working for the Professor Wang's are the Joe Blows. (I'm laughing as I type that sentence).

I'm all about Research. An inquisitive mind brings about interesting inventions. There is a pretty intensive review process to get funding. For some reason I think the majority of people think the money is free, no strings attached, for whatever you idea you pull out of your ass...
I would say a good 1% of the population actually understand what it is and how it works.

Because someone hasn't found the cure to cancer yet doesn't mean that we should stop researching it. Think about how far treatments have come along since the 50's. There is a much higher rate of survival for Breast Cancer alone. This was due to research.

Afterschool programs for little kids, most of these are funded by federal dollars as part of education research.

Psychology, there is a field that has grown leaps and bounds because of research.

I would say the majority of it does go to useful programs.

[slam]

One thing I am sure of is we absolutely can not raise the Cap gains tax. The market tanking is absolutely killing people who are nearing retirement and invested in a 401K.

you should be less sure, JVO, if that's your only reason. 401Ks and other tax deferred savings are not taxed as capital gains. they are instead taxed as regular income when the money is withdrawn.

yes, most capital gains taxes are paid by the rich, and they pay at a way lower rate than the rest of us (no payroll tax on cap gains, and a much lower percentage)

[slam]

Define something we're investing in that will provide for a positive gain in the future?

well, how about we just go with Obama's top three, in order of importance: health care, education, clean energy. those all sound like worthwhile investments to me, and ones that could pay for themselves if done correctly.

yeah, you can dig all you want into the stimulus package and pick out lines to bitch about (or, just let your right wing radio peeps do it for you). but the meat and potatoes is investment. the rest has a lot to do with putting people to work. the lower unemployment, the better we'll all be.

Capitilism works if government stays out of the way... it doesn't work if you know you have big brother to pick you up, dust you off, and put you back on your feet.

it also only works if the government regulates the fuck out of it. our current mess wasn't caused by the government deciding to not let these massive companies like AIG fail. the mess was caused by letting them get so large and leveraged in the first place. too big to
fail = too big.

Investing in scientific research is fine, but how does that help the people that really need the help?

would you rather the next generation of scientific breakthroughs (and the ensuing new industries) come from other countries? how is that going to help us stay on top?

Well, riddle me this: How do you make money by raising capital gains taxes on people who are selling things for capital losses?

the tax raise isn't supposed to make us a lot more money right now. upping the capital gains tax now is a good idea because it would be less painful to most investors, as they're not selling much for profit anyways. the increased tax will start to make us more money if/when the market goes back up.

America already has a progressive tax system. Before you immediatley dismiss that because its what we've been spoon fed every day for the past two years, go ahead and do some research and discover that the wealthiest companies and individuals already support our increasingly gov't burdened society.... and they probably benefit from most of the social programs their funding THE LEAST.

you think social programs don't help the corporations at all? what if each corporation had to pay a full retirement package for every worker, if we didn't have social security /medicaire /medicaid.

and social programs sure as hell aren't all that your tax money is spent on. we invest in university research (that the companies can later profit on), negotiating trade rules with foreign countries, flexing our military muscle to 'open markets'.... the list goes on and on. trust me, if it weren't advantageous for those companies to stay here in the united states and pay their unfair tax rates, they would have already left.

Do you want nationalized health insurance? If you raised your hand, you want and approve of higher taxes..... for everyone.

yes, yes i do. i'd be happy to pay those higher taxes, as, i believe, in the end, it would be less than i already pay.

As to JVOs point, Capital Gains would have a negative impact on retirees, but to a much lesser extent at the moment since we're at 1986 stock levels.

and, as i pointed out, that's simply incorrect.

Why am I the only one pissed off about this??

the better question is, why are you so pissed off about this now, rather than the last eight years when we were digging this hole?

Are we ALL forgetting that it was unilaterally approved to go to war??

only the first War.

From what he said I thought he meant DETAIL, and yet.. nothing.

recovery.gov isn't a copy of the stimulus bill. it's not going to say "here's how we're going to divvy up all the money, down to the last dollar" it's more big picture.

now, once individual contracts have been signed for specific portions of the money, that data will go on the site. you'll be able to track every dollar that was spent, and see who it went to. this is an unprecedented amount of transparency in government spending. show a little patience and maybe your head won't explode.

[zero2056]

Slam is correct, 401k money is taxed as ordinary income after the age of 59.5


Thanks for the vote of confidence on the "right wing radio" circuit, but the only politically minded individuals I pay any attetion to are Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs on CNN (not right wing), Bill Maher on HBO, and Jon Stewart. So those lovely little insights are not influenced by me being spoon fed ideas out of whoever the latest right wing radio hotshot is at the moment. You can throw in the WSJ which I read every day as well.

Excellent question as to why I wasn't as pissed off the last 8 years. Basically, I didn't pay as much attention in the last 8 years and didn't really start following how fucked up everything is until this past election. I knew what was going at a very high level, but now I'm tuned in and very interested in knowing what is being proposed to fix things. And I can't find anything. I'd be railing on GWB just as much as I'm railing on the leaderless democrats now. Our shit is broken.

yes, yes i do. i'd be happy to pay those higher taxes, as, i believe, in the end, it would be less than i already pay.

I 100% believe you are Incorrect on this statement. You think your taxes are going to be lower long-term by having nationalized healthcare and running PLANNED over trillion dollar deficits for the next few years?

you think social programs don't help the corporations at all? what if each corporation had to pay a full retirement package for every worker, if we didn't have social security /medicaire /medicaid.

and social programs sure as hell aren't all that your tax money is spent on. we invest in university research (that the companies can later profit on), negotiating trade rules with foreign countries, flexing our military muscle to 'open markets'.... the list goes on and on. trust me, if it weren't advantageous for those companies to stay here in the united states and pay their unfair tax rates, they would have already left

Brotha', the government isn't providing a sufficient retirement for our current seniors and they sure as hell are not going to be able to provide anything for you and me when we're old and crippled. Private savings is the only thing that is going to allow us to retire, unless we're talking about raising that tax rate again to allow the US gov't to "take care" of us and our retirements.

Many corporations do provide a retirement program, its called a percentage match on your 401k/SEP funds.


Anyway, I'm way off track at this point. All I want is:

1) Fiscal conservatism. Now is not the time to be pushing liberal agendas for national healthcare and rallying education causes. Now is the time to try and get out of our current mess. Cut that shit out of these packages and let's get down to spending as few dollars as possible on something that will actually stimulate economic growth. This is definite pork that can be cut.

2) Get the $$ going to institutional research out of there. Universities and institutions never are as efficient as private enterprise. If you want a cure for cancer, fund a group of private individuals who have the ability to profit off of it. This is definite pork that can be cut. Better yet, have venture capitilists fund it and demand results. Leave the gov't out. Professor Wang can go and cry on his bunson burner.

3) I'm not picking out line items on the uber detailed recovery.org website, I'm simply stating there is no detail for us to measure if what we're all paying for is having any effect whatsoever. How is that point even arguable? I personally don't believe that any high ranking gov't official (republican or democratic) at this point in time has a clue to begin fixing what is currently occurring.

4) Hold inefficient companies and stupid people accountable for their actions. Now is the time to let them fail. If they do not fail, how do they ever learn? GM... let it go. AIG, bye bye. You cannot blame capitlism for the mess, when we don't let the ultimate end game for bad ideas to come to fruition which is failure/bankruptcy. This isn't capitalism anymore, its gov't intervention Care Bear capitalism.


Things are not going to be pretty for a long time. Economic stimulus will have no long-term affect. Why put us in deeper debt than we already are?

[zero2056]

I'm going to go all out and say you are 100% INCORRECT on this.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the number of people who are employeed through federal research dollars. If these people don't have jobs, how can they live in the US?

Most likely these individuals are ones with mortgages, who will then go into default, adding to the economic burden.

I guess I don't see how adding more jobs is NOT helping the economy. Isn't that the goal, to get people out there and spending?


Interesting statistic this morning:

Private enterprise in America has laid off over 6.5 million jobs to date.

Government/Public sector jobs has hired over 150,000 to date.

So... lemme get this straight... tax revenues (property, personal, and sales) are down across the board about everywhere, yet our gov't agencies still are padding their payrolls with more jobs??? Not to mention, gov't jobs typically come with a slew of wonderful benefits that we all get to pay for (pensions, health care, additional retirement benefits not generally offered to private sector employees).

Gov't has to be held accountable to the same standards as private industry. Each one of us is a "shareholder" in the US gov't, and I cast my 1 out of 300,000,000 vote for something different than what is being proposed right now to "fix" things.

Universities/municipalities should be cutting heads just the same as private enterprise. Complaining about "hiring freezes" doesn't make sense. Complaining that these institutions have not decreased their payroll makes perfect sence. Funding is down, jobs must decrease. If these people worked for private enterprise and that private enterprise was losing their shirt we'd expect them to layoff workers, downsize, whatever the buzz word for the day happens to be. Instead, Universities and other Gov't agencies, school boards, etc. are at the Capitol building holding out their hand, and probably asking for an increase to boot.

[Soul Queen]

Interesting statistic this morning:

Private enterprise in America has laid off over 6.5 million jobs to date.

Government/Public sector jobs has hired over 150,000 to date.

So... lemme get this straight... tax revenues (property, personal, and sales) are down across the board about everywhere, yet our gov't agencies still are padding their payrolls with more jobs??? Not to mention, gov't jobs typically come with a slew of wonderful benefits that we all get to pay for (pensions, health care, additional retirement benefits not generally offered to private sector employees).

Gov't has to be held accountable to the same standards as private industry. Each one of us is a "shareholder" in the US gov't, and I cast my 1 out of 300,000,000 vote for something different than what is being proposed right now to "fix" things.

Universities/municipalities should be cutting heads just the same as private enterprise. Complaining about "hiring freezes" doesn't make sense. Complaining that these institutions have not decreased their payroll makes perfect sence. Funding is down, jobs must decrease. If these people worked for private enterprise and that private enterprise was losing their shirt we'd expect them to layoff workers, downsize, whatever the buzz word for the day happens to be. Instead, Universities and other Gov't agencies, school boards, etc. are at the Capitol building holding out their hand, and probably asking for an increase to boot.

Universities/municipalities are laying off just like the private sector. I can tell you this first hand. I think it would be interesting to see if the 150,000 are new jobs, or old recycled jobs. The difference is that these entities are NON PROFIT and therefore do their business is a different way than private companies. This means that their employees are paid at a much lower pay. They know how much money to expect in a year and they make a budget to follow it. There is NOTHING extra.

I think anyone that thinks average government workers are overpaid lives in a dream world. I'm talking the person who works at the DMV, the accountant at Parks and Recreations, the forestry worker...Why would you propose average government workers to take a pay cut? They are just like you or I. Would you be okay if your company asked you to take a pay cut? Do you not think they deserve benefits like everyone else? They work for the American people! They take your gripey ass shit every day and get to read about everyone bitching about their so called glorious lives in the paper EVERY DAY.

I can see being upset at the gluttonous Senators, fat cats in Washington, but I don't see how that anger should be focused on the average schmuck working for the government.

What's happening now is that everyone (Private and Non profit), everywhere are hiring people at a lower pay scale, with lower skills. You have to feel sorry for anyone with a ton of experience right now. I'm sure they've heard "your overqualified" enough to puke.

"Padding the payroll with jobs!?" What a joke.

[matty]

SQ, I completely agree!

I think anyone that thinks average government workers are overpaid lives in a dream world. I'm talking the person who works at the DMV, the accountant at Parks and Recreations, the forestry worker...Why would you propose average government workers to take a pay cut? They are just like you or I. Would you be okay if your company asked you to take a pay cut? Do you not think they deserve benefits like everyone else? They work for the American people! They take your gripey ass shit every day and get to read about everyone bitching about their so called glorious lives in the paper EVERY DAY.

Here at MU, we get emails every week that basically say, "Prepare for big layoffs."

I interviewed for a different job at the Uni a month ago, and I probably would have gotten it, but then the University implemented a hiring freeze. So I'm stuck at this job, and as people leave the University (and my department) for other jobs, they are not going to refill those positions. So I'm doing twice the work. Well, maybe I'll get a raise out of all this...

Oops! We're also on a raise freeze--we won't be getting a raise this year, and probably not next year. I barely survive on what I make now! What am I going to do as cigarette prices go up and my salary stays the same?

Oh wait--my income is actually dropping! All University employees now have to put 1% of our paychecks into our retirement funds, effectively taking half of the 2% raises we got a year ago. (That was the last time we had a raise, mind you.) And we've been warned that we might have to put another 1% into our retirement funds, which will negate the raise we got last year.

yes, state/govt jobs sure are glamorous and safe.

[JVO]

The difference is that these entities are NON PROFIT and therefore do their business is a different way than private companies.

Yes, they do it in a much less efficient way because there is no possibility or incentive to make a profit. The fact that a company is PROFIT by very nature means that the failure or success of the company lies in its efficiency and productivity. With government or NON Profit there is no possibility of making a profit (generally) and the entire point is to provide some service or create some technology, or conduct some type of research. Therefore they are not in it for the money they are in it for the job itself. Certainly this is noble and something that I have respect for, but it does nothing to help the economy or to keep from wasting money. I will give you a perfect example. Let’s say that I work for a university and my job is exploring different ways to make solar energy practical. My research team is given a $200,000 yearly budget. So December rolls along and I find that my department has only spent $150,000. Instead of being excited by my departments efficiency, I am going to immediately try to figure out ways to blow $50,000 in the last month of the year because if I don’t blow this money then there is a very good chance that my budget will be cut next year since it is obvious that I don’t need the entire $200,000. The last thing a government organization wants to do is to come in under budget because they know that they will have money taken away from them on the following year. Ok, now let’s look at the same scenario at a private company. In my job I am in charge of the budget for Corporate Office spending. My budget is roughly $75,000. As part of my employment, I am offered a 5% bonus at the end of the year on any amount of money that the Corporate Office spends less than budget. Therefore if I only spend $50,000 of the year I get a bonus of 5% of $25,000 or $1250.00. The remaining $23,750 gets pumped back into the corporate coffers allowing us to be more competitive in expanding our business and thus CREATING MORE JOBS. Because I have a financial interest in coming in as far below budget as possible I am much more selective when it comes to buying goods. Even stupid stuff like cartons of paper, I will spend an hour going to every website trying to find the best deal on paper, not because I care about saving the company money, but because every penny that I am able to save will directly translate into more money for me at the end of the year. So whereas a NON PROFIT company will do everything to make sure that they spend all of their budget to ensure that they don’t have it cut, a PROFIT organization will do everything they can to come under budget so that they have more revenue and (in my case) so that I can collect a personal bonus. This is why UPS is making money while providing a better service and the post office is losing money and has crappy service.


This means that their employees are paid at a much lower pay. They know how much money to expect in a year and they make a budget to follow it. There is NOTHING extra.



This may be true at the very highest levels, but it is not true overall. For instance I am sure that a successful Corporate (or even unsuccessful) President makes more money than a University President. But when you go down the food chain things change significantly. We have taken over the food service from a number of public universities and the first thing we do is cut payroll. Generally we give the Manager (who was an employee of the state until we took over) three options: 1) Quit 2) Take a pay cut (generally around 10%) or 3) Cut the number of employees that they have working to make up for this 10% difference. The reason why we do this is because nearly all Universities who provide their own food service lose significant amounts of money. For the Universities they don’t care about this loss because they are not providing food service in order to make money, they are doing it as a means to promote the university and help in encouraging people to enroll at the school and to continue there throughout their education. A University would much rather have a stable, if slightly inefficient food service, than a streamlined profitable one because they do not have the desire or resources to recruit new Manager’s and staff and train them. Now I am sure this isn’t true with office jobs, but it does show why it is much more profitable for gov’t institution to use subcontractors as much as possible. It is cheaper and more efficient and the private company is in a much better position to do training, hiring, firing, etc. As a private company the only thing that we are interested in is making money. So we are going to provide the cheapest possible food service for the most amount of money possible. Therefore we pay all of the employees less than what the university did because we have to cut as many costs as possible and payroll is an easy place to start. Most universities and government jobs are required also to make payroll information public. On their websites most government institutions will post the pay scales on their website so potential employees know what they will be paid, and also know that they are getting paid in the same scale as everyone else who has that job. Have you ever noticed that private PROFIT companies almost never do this? The reason why is because they don’t want you know what the scale is. The less information you have the weaker your negotiating position is when discussing salary. By not disclosing pay grids, the employer is hoping to be able to pay you as little as possible and since you have no frame of reference there is nothing you can do about it. Also a PROFIT company doesn’t treat all of the employees the same. If you are an excellent employee and increase the efficiency of a company, chances are the company will pay you more money. If you are not a good employee, on the other hand, the company will probably not give you raises in hopes that you quit. Even if you don’t quit, it is good for the company because they are paying you much less then what you are actually worth. Like matty said, with gov’t institutions this is not the case. Either everybody gets a 2% raise across the board regardless of efficiency or they don’t. Same thing when things are tough and a University needs to cut payroll, instead of punishing bad employees and rewarding good ones, they simply do a payroll cut across the board. Since all employees are treated the same, there is no incentive to be a good employee or to try to find ways to save money because you are going to get the same pay as the slacker next to you (depending on tenure) so why should you bother with the extra work.

[Soul Queen]

I disagree somewhat with some of your paragraph.
Not everyone has an excess amount of money left over at the end of the year. Some people run out in the middle of the year. Some people even if they spend the full amount are still going to have their budgets slashed.

Expenses as calculated based on what you spend in a given year. Per government regulations, you cannot spend more than what a prudent person would do in a given situation. You cannot stockpile on supplies.
Now certain people certainly try to do this, and this is why you see articles in the paper where Universities have been fined MILLIONS of dollars for doing so. I'm speaking in a general federal funding approach.
In essence there is much red tape involved in obtaining federal funds, hundreds of pages of regulations concerning how you spend it, and audit guidelines to make sure you are doing so in a prudent manner. :expert:

I think its terrible to slash someone's wages. If they make a good salary, then somewhere along the line they did a good job in negotiating a good pay. Thats hard to do. In the flush years, I don't think its unreasonable to receive a 4% raise.


I personally, left the private business sector because its a heartless, ruthless bitch. I would rather work for a place that provides a service for the general public good. Of course some days, I wish I didn't have to work at all, sit on a beach and have cute pool guys serve me cold drinks.

oh wait... I digress....:p

[JVO]

Not everyone has an excess amount of money left over at the end of the year. Some people run out in the middle of the year. Some people even if they spend the full amount are still going to have their budgets slashed.



Yeah, I think that is going to be the case across the board. Private, Public and gov'ts are going to have to slash things until investors, banks, and consumers get some confidence back in the economy. Of course this doesn't apply to the Federal government who is simply going to print more money or try to get loans from China to make up for the incredible budget that is being proposed. That is my major problem, Americans across the board are having to cut expenses while the biggest spender, the American Gov't, is actually increasing spending. That doesn't really make sense to me, but hopefully it will work.

I personally, left the private business sector because its a heartless, ruthless bitch.

True, but that is the reason why successful Corporations are so much more efficent than the govt. Since they are in it for the money they do a much better job of squeezing every bit out of every penny. If our govt was concerned in spending we would not have a $4 trillion deficit. No corporation could ever stay in business using the same sloppy accounting measures and providing as poor a service as the gov't does. The reason why the gov't can get away with it is because we have no other choice.

[bubz_bluez]

i have one thing to say which is kind of an agreement with what slam said but....

Zero said:
"Investing in scientific research is fine, but how does that help the people that really need the help?"

Now heres the deal... there are programs set up so that a majority of people wishing to go to school have the ability <<its not always easy, but even people that struggle the problems i do<<VOC-REHAB> so i took the easiest path to follow...
ME--->taking money i deserve from the gov. "SSI" through "6 near death expierinaces<<all tied to ether being through medication issues or near death expiances from my youth "ALL tied to my bi-polar issues" << a condition i have the right to pull SSI forever <<never what i will do... ill be on SSI for a little over nine months<<<that behind me ill be able to go to school<<an oppertunity nearly impossible without programs and orginstations willing to back me....just because i was born diffrently.
all of this shit being said the truth is i dont believe theres anyone who accesses this board who truely understands the strength or weaknesses in the health care system<<being through it and dealt with it since i was fifteen... the Judaical system has its holes as well.... but the point ive said all of this and my comments that are tied to what zero and slam said is this....
we need to teach the next generation thats it is "UNACEPTABLE!" for us to continue to put money into the japanise for cars electronic and so much bullshit that they sit so fuckin high above our technology that we if we literally want to catch up we would have to buy some of they're tech heads in various catagories...... anyways the point of course is there needs to be so much of our "bounce back" money spent on research done from "UNIVERITY campus' they back and run"
for example a lot of research is done from rich very funded school such as Harvard,Yale...
you all get the idea the only thing that is hard to swallow is... the fact that people born or through time have developed diseases or mental illnesses THE FACT is your life will always be a serious of struggles... midication could take you from the planet at any time... ive rolled the dice so many times im convinced that i can see this shit commin' so much so that ive decided im too fuckin' strong to stay in the corner of society and bitch about what i wish could change....
in time im going to join the "opps didnt realized something...
miss spelled the orgination the one i said is canadian based lol
i researched a bunch of places and found the right one.... lost the website
anyways ok had to do more research....""theres something in columbia thats National Alliance of Mental Illness""
finally ive decided i need to take my freakin' story to them---> Not only to write the story of hell and back but to join they're team and see what i can do for those who struggle worse then me....
as utterly fucked as my life has been... they''re are im sure worse storys
finally ill have to privileged ability to stand up...
thats what we need to do with education fuckin stand up and teach the kids what they HAVE to stand up against "the rest of the world"

anyways... hope everything is well with everyone

bubs

[bubz_bluez]

conversation with education will always drift randomly from education to health care becuase as americans we should have it better
we should bring this shit straight to the heart of home. and i mean take both problems and lets fuckin' do something.
the money the gov. is sending out--->large chunks of it is going to be invested in social security, Mental Illness research* <<this money of course is to try and find pills that dont fuckin' try to kill people.....
its a good thing i dont care if im the only one who believes in it.
Obama is a smart guy whos going to repair what has been headed down hill for longer than most people accept to believe....

alright im outta here take care everyone

bubs

[slam]

I 100% believe you are Incorrect on this statement. You think your taxes are going to be lower long-term by having nationalized healthcare and running PLANNED over trillion dollar deficits for the next few years?

yes, i believe i would pay less if health care were nationally run. here's some numbers to back that up:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3

In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4


it seems obvious to me by these numbers that a single payer, nationalized health care system that covers every person costs way, way less for the country as a whole.


If you want a cure for cancer, fund a group of private individuals who have the ability to profit off of it.

right. because i'm certain none of those research workers have any other motives to cure cancer. i'm sure they're all from families untouched by cancer, and would work just a little harder to save millions of lives if someone would pay them a bit more...


If they do not fail, how do they ever learn? GM... let it go. AIG, bye bye.


i would love to agree with you on that, but i trust they're telling us the truth when they say companies like AIG are 'too big to fail'. who knows...

Yes, they do it in a much less efficient way because there is no possibility or incentive to make a profit. The fact that a company is PROFIT by very nature means that the failure or success of the company lies in its efficiency and productivity.

you know, in theory, you're right. private companies should be more 'efficient'. but who says 'efficient' = 'good'? if efficient means that the organization i'm giving my money to doesn't give a fuck about their employees, pays their CEO a quarter million dollars a year while laying off tens of thousands of people, dumps pollution into my environment.... yes, companies can be ruthlessly efficient.

the question is, when i give my money to an organization, do i want as much for my dime as possible, or do i want to be supporting a group of people who won't fuck me over?

i trust the government, as a whole, more than i do corporations. after this last year, anyone who doesn't is a sucker.

[zero2056]

i trust the government, as a whole, more than i do corporations. after this last year, anyone who doesn't is a sucker.


After this past year (past two years), I'm not quite sure how you can trust either of them.

[JVO]

This is real bad: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090305/pl_afp/financeeconomyusbankinggovernment

If people lose faith in the FDIC they will no longer put their money in banks and then we are going to have a real problem.

Good thing I am broke so I have nothing to lose!

Zero, you will let me know when it is time to panic won't you?

On a side note, my Dad said that guns sales are going through the roof. I guess attendance at gun shows is at an amazingly high level, and gun shops have empty shelves because they can't keep stuff in stock fast enough. Dad said it normally takes about a half hour to wait on the background checks, but because there has been such a massive increase in gun purchases the wait is like 3 weeks. I am not sure if this has to do with the economy or the fear that Dems are going to make purchasing a gun more difficult, but whatever the reason I guess the increase in gun sales is amazing. It sorta reminds me of what happened with billboards here in MO. We tried to pass a law that would limit the number of billboards, so of course companies started building billboards every place possible to try to get them grandfathered in. Unfortunately the bill failed, and now we have so many billboards it is really obnoxious. It seems like 25% of them are vacant. So instead of limiting the number of billboards all this did was drastically increase the number of billboards. That's unintended consequences.

[zero2056]

This is real bad: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090305/pl_afp/financeeconomyusbankinggovernment

If people lose faith in the FDIC they will no longer put their money in banks and then we are going to have a real problem.

Good thing I am broke so I have nothing to lose!


The FDIC is in real bad shape. I was notified today that our bank will have a "special" FDIC assessment equal to 20 basis points of our deposit base. No heads up, just pay it or lose your insurance. 20 basis points is only if you're a "1" rated bank. It goes up to a full percentage point for the "4" rated dismal banks (which will no doubt push many of them out of business).

So.... we're punishing the banks that are well capitilized and make money and are not in financial trouble because they didn't make dumb mistakes by charging them millions to prop up the FDIC fund which is giving money to the shitty banks?

Swell. Lovin' this new policy. I've got to wait til 2010 to fucking vote again?

Charging millions to small banks like my own and billions to larger sound banks is a sure fire way to have more money lent into our economy, don't you think?

[zero2056]

This is real bad: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090305/pl_afp/financeeconomyusbankinggovernment

On a side note, my Dad said that guns sales are going through the roof. I guess attendance at gun shows is at an amazingly high level, and gun shops have empty shelves because they can't keep stuff in stock fast enough. Dad said it normally takes about a half hour to wait on the background checks, but because there has been such a massive increase in gun purchases the wait is like 3 weeks. I am not sure if this has to do with the economy or the fear that Dems are going to make purchasing a gun more difficult, but whatever the reason I guess the increase in gun sales is amazing. It sorta reminds me of what happened with billboards here in MO. We tried to pass a law that would limit the number of billboards, so of course companies started building billboards every place possible to try to get them grandfathered in. Unfortunately the bill failed, and now we have so many billboards it is really obnoxious. It seems like 25% of them are vacant. So instead of limiting the number of billboards all this did was drastically increase the number of billboards. That's unintended consequences.

The local ammunition distributor here in town's entire warehouse has been drained of both firearms and ammo. Another customer of mine is a regional distributor of firearms, scopes, ammo, etc., and they cannot keep enough in stock. The ammo companies are raking in billions because their raw materials cost is down (metals and such), and with the increased demand they can increase the price per box of ammo or firearm.

Very interesting to me.

The gun legislation will not be passed, so there's going to be a real crash in the value of these items in the long-term.

[zero2056]

it seems obvious to me by these numbers that a single payer, nationalized health care system that covers every person costs way, way less for the country as a whole.

Though I have no way to back up or challenge your quoted statistics, I can point out it does not state anything about the quality of health care received.

There are foreigners that come to the United States to get heart/cardiovascular related surgies, joint replacement, and other surgeries because the quality is higher and you don't have to sit on a waiting list due to a lack of doctor's/hospital beds. Private, quality healthcare is a net exporter of goods for the United States.

When it comes to Healthcare, I'm vote against bargain shopping. Do you want Postal Worker Dan or the Doctor at the VA doing your knee replacement, or would you rather have the guy that put his name on the line, backing it up with quality and ingenuity, taking the risk of getting a bank loan and opening his own private practice because he's that confident in his abilities.

Welfare doctors scare the bejeezus out of me. I keep picturing Dr. Ned or whatever the hell his name is off of the Simpsons (uh oh... where's my watch?).

If something like this does pass (which wouldn't surprise me the way congress appears to be currently brainless/spineless), then I hope its just to cover the uninsured, and not dissuade private sector companies to retain talent by providing superior healthcare plans and care.

Either way if it passes, I believe the US will lose a competitive advantage it has over other countries at the moment.

[bubz_bluez]

well heres a little Q to A...
regardless of what country a dr. is from MOST foreign Doc's go through the same medical training as the white dr with the Boston actsent....
my point of course is the fact that the University Hospital in Columbia is rated one of the best Hospital's around
the fact is if you break your shit you know your going to the University...
and when you get there your most likly going to be face to face with a Dr. who looks like quote "The foreign guy from the Simpsions"

the truth is most of these Dr's are very good at what they do for one reason...."cups hands around mouth" THEY are trying to look as good as possible even better than the white guy who comes to work every day -->does his job well and clocks out on the dot like how you say "clock work"
Ive put my faith in Doctors who i had to listen intensively to understand --->over all view of the situation trust them as much as the other guy. tune your ears up and listen
trust me they work super hard to one up everybody else.

thinking outside metaphorical boxes,
bubs

[slam]

When it comes to Healthcare, I'm vote against bargain shopping.

i find this reaction fascinating, and i know i've chewed this point over with JVO before. why, exactly, would universal health care prevent you from paying extra for better service? i mean, it's not like millionaires are going to be ending up in the same waiting rooms as the homeless.

BUT, for the 46 million americans who have zero health care at all, it would be a massive improvement. and, all together, we, as a country, could use 10% of our GDP on something more productive (like terminator robots, or sterling silver segways)

(and before this argument goes back to 'doctors have to pay off their extraordinary school loans', most of these socialized countries also pay for higher education)

[zero2056]

i find this reaction fascinating, and i know i've chewed this point over with JVO before. why, exactly, would universal health care prevent you from paying extra for better service? i mean, it's not like millionaires are going to be ending up in the same waiting rooms as the homeless.

BUT, for the 46 million americans who have zero health care at all, it would be a massive improvement. and, all together, we, as a country, could use 10% of our GDP on something more productive (like terminator robots, or sterling silver segways)

(and before this argument goes back to 'doctors have to pay off their extraordinary school loans', most of these socialized countries also pay for higher education)

So now I'm paying for homeless people and food stamp baby mama's to do what.... Live longer on the streets homeless? Suck us dry through increaesed social programs? That sounds great. Sign me up.

How are we reclaiming 10% of our GDP again with nationalized health care, again? Due to some statistics that were quoted which are more than likely lower due to a lack of quality healthcare? Or maybe because we're going to save money for homeless people to get heart transplants so that they can live longer and thus increase our welfare dollars? Oh maybe, we're saving the 10% of our GDP by paying for Doctor's college tuition (which is in the $200,000 range). That should save us some bucks. Maybe we can pay for the homeless people to go to medical school!!

Here's my primary problem: I don't care if the uninsured have health care. I fully realize I'm a heartless bastard, but let's get real here. I'm a very firm believer in that you work for what you want. On the quality of care issue, its a supply and demand thing. Lower pay for physicians and specialists will cause a portion of the more qualified people to not become physicians and specialists and put their impressive brain power to the field of medicine. They'll dedicate their talents to something else that will make more money. Yes, I'm assuming that most doctors are money grubbing whores, but after meeting many of them, I believe that this is accurate, maybe not for an overwhelming majority, but I'm gonna go right at 50/50.

To a lesser extent (I'm not cut out to be a doctor, and realize that - I'd make one hell of a prick Attorney, howver), I'm a perfect example. If I were filthy rich I'd be a history teacher, coaching the golf team on the side for a small Glasgow sized town. I think that would be a great, relaxing, a rewarding job.

Not wanting to live on a teacher's wage has forced me outside of what I would truly want to do, and aim higher on the economic ladder seeking monetary rewards rather than personal satisfaction by educating children on subjects that fascinate me. I've chosen that path not only to provide for myself, but also to provide for my family at a higher level.

I could be way off base, but I think this is how a large majority of people think in this country and other countries either consciously or subconsciously.

Here's a question:

Do all of you do the job that you would do if all things considered equal you could make the same sort of living doing that other job you hold as "ideal" in your heads, or do you do what you do now because it provides for a lifestyle that is comfortable and satisfying for you which the other job would not provide?

[zero2056]

well heres a little Q to A...
regardless of what country a dr. is from MOST foreign Doc's go through the same medical training as the white dr with the Boston actsent....
my point of course is the fact that the University Hospital in Columbia is rated one of the best Hospital's around
the fact is if you break your shit you know your going to the University...

Nope sorry. The best hospital in Columbia is Boone County Hospital. Owned by the County, but run FOR A PROFIT (even though its techinically a not for profit) by a private healthcare group known as BJC out of St. Louis. In this case, i use the term best meaning where people choose to go if they have a choice per actual published survey's. Also, the Univeristy is a teaching hospital which means you have hundreds of learning student doctors being in places I don't really want them to be.

Best place regionally and some consider in the country for orthopaedic care is the Columbia Orthopaedic Group. A group of private doctors. They are on retainer for some of the most lucrative professional sports teams in the country. I also know of two billionaires within the past two months that have chosen the Columbia Orthopaedic Group (one for a hip surgery and the other for a knee). Think about that? If one had a billion dollars you could go anywhere in the world to receive care. One of these resides in Nevada/CA full time, the other in Oklahoma.

Best regional cardiovascular care is the Missouri Heart Center led by Dr. Kennett.

Best Urology Care is a firm consisting of six doctors led by Dr. Dresner, called Associated Urologists.

All three of these groups receive referrals from general practitioners in Kansas City and St. Louis on a regular basis, and all of that in a town of about 100,000 people.

The University Sports teams do not even use the orthopaedic wing of the University Hospital... they send their athletes to the Columbia Orthopaedic Group.... why? Better care.

Notice none of the above is gov't run. Boone County doesn't count, because its managed by a highly profitable private management company. Worst part about Boone County hospital is that they don't even have to pay taxes on the enormous profit they make each year. I can only imagine the nightmare it would be if run by the county government. They cannot even get zoning restrictions accomplished in an expedient manner.

How about the rest of you? Is the "best" hospital where you live government/university ran? If so, is it managed by a private corporate entity that specializes in hospital management?

[Lori Burger]

So now I'm paying for homeless people and food stamp baby mama's to do what.... Live longer on the streets homeless? Suck us dry through increaesed social programs? That sounds great. Sign me up.

How are we reclaiming 10% of our GDP again with nationalized health care, again? Due to some statistics that were quoted which are more than likely lower due to a lack of quality healthcare? Or maybe because we're going to save money for homeless people to get heart transplants so that they can live longer and thus increase our welfare dollars? Oh maybe, we're saving the 10% of our GDP by paying for Doctor's college tuition (which is in the $200,000 range). That should save us some bucks. Maybe we can pay for the homeless people to go to medical school!!

Here's my primary problem: I don't care if the uninsured have health care. I fully realize I'm a heartless bastard, but let's get real here. I'm a very firm believer in that you work for what you want. On the quality of care issue, its a supply and demand thing. Lower pay for physicians and specialists will cause a portion of the more qualified people to not become physicians and specialists and put their impressive brain power to the field of medicine. They'll dedicate their talents to something else that will make more money. Yes, I'm assuming that most doctors are money grubbing whores, but after meeting many of them, I believe that this is accurate, maybe not for an overwhelming majority, but I'm gonna go right at 50/50.

To a lesser extent (I'm not cut out to be a doctor, and realize that - I'd make one hell of a prick Attorney, howver), I'm a perfect example. If I were filthy rich I'd be a history teacher, coaching the golf team on the side for a small Glasgow sized town. I think that would be a great, relaxing, a rewarding job.

Not wanting to live on a teacher's wage has forced me outside of what I would truly want to do, and aim higher on the economic ladder seeking monetary rewards rather than personal satisfaction by educating children on subjects that fascinate me. I've chosen that path not only to provide for myself, but also to provide for my family at a higher level.

I could be way off base, but I think this is how a large majority of people think in this country and other countries either consciously or subconsciously.

Here's a question:

Do all of you do the job that you would do if all things considered equal you could make the same sort of living doing that other job you hold as "ideal" in your heads, or do you do what you do now because it provides for a lifestyle that is comfortable and satisfying for you which the other job would not provide?

First, not everyone who would benefit from a universal healthcare system is a homeless person or a food stamp baby's mama. That's a very offensive and ignorant thing to say.

Also, I don't know why teachers' pay gets such a cruddy rep. In many states (CA, NY, even PA) they pay qualified teachers well, and the job market is very competitive. At 24, having a BA (at that time) and 2 years of teaching experience, I made enough to buy myself a car and a modest little condo in Baltimore, MD, with the total help from my folks of $1000.

And really, I wouldn't say teaching's a 'relaxing' job by any stretch of the term. You clearly don't understand what the job entails.

[bubz_bluez]

lori brings up good points i couldn't argue with any of that...
back to the issue of the university...

University Physician's are corporate owned they are in many states. They buy up failing hospitals such as MID-MO... the whole forein doctors thing is not only borderline discrimination.. but like i said they strive to out do the next guy often <practiced achievements>
they are in the 5-6 billion dollar profit category... the name or corporate name holds a serious percentile <of course they have the same kind of set up as being non-profit--profited hospital like your point with Boone.
I will never go back to Boone<<<spent almost a week fucking fighting kidney failure than i went to University an it took them a matter of a about three days to figure out the problem>>>> of course its great to live in Columbia or near by to have access to these hospitals.
anyways my point of all this is that "NEVER trust any county hospital anywhere" if there's no where to go than sure you should do it... but trust me, my experiences, my knowledge of others experiences... corporate ran means more money, sometimes corrupt but more often than not if they are invested in hospitals they have over time grown to more caring understanding than most believe. and finally i dont think anyone could truly understand how bad the health care system is until your right smack in the middle of the chaos.
I would sooner go to the Fayette University clinic in Columbia than go to the shit run Boonville hospital or the Boone county hospital....
if it takes me the rest of my life to write about my experiance from the age of fifteen to 19 <<mostly written about the pit falls of healthcare and my constant struggle to live my life by guidelines <lines lined with pills that could harm me. my struggle will never end. i don't have the patients to become a doctor nor the money, but i got big plans in a few months to come...

bubs

[bubz_bluez]

last thing that i think i should say about health care is simply this. it is in place to protect us from all the bad weird shit out there. we being the so called "best democracy" this is something we must keep improving. the fight for rights of those born or grown into issues that cannot be controlled by your free will. or deseases that come along these are issues that must be dealt with strongly and there should always be doctors and families that stand together regardless of where your from or how you speak. Doctors are beyond obsession... obsession being the foundation of what has made American minds thrive on to create some of the most inavative "ahead of they're time" ideas. As Americans we have a responsibility to do whats right no matter who stands against it. We don't start wars anymore we finish them. I walked out of hell, overcame serious health issues many times and the life lesson to be learned is that "Strength in anyone is not gifted, but found within yourself and others. When it seems like you cant go on the strength, faith an inability to stop fighting is truly the gifts you can carry and should be passed on."
all of the elements that thrive in the strong physically and mentally, that energy needs to be focused and pushed on the issue of health care. there needs to be someone somewhere who can stand up and finish this.
Obama will i hope be the man that can back the straight an narrow road that is ahead. Obama is so driven to do the right thing that it scares me sometimes how he speaks of the future... his legacy for lack of a better word<<is going to be built around fixing or reparing the economy and i hope his health care and energy bills get passed, so we can move the country toward a better understanding of how things need to be done.

[zero2056]

And really, I wouldn't say teaching's a 'relaxing' job by any stretch of the term. You clearly don't understand what the job entails.

:violin:

You're right. I don't have a hands-on view of what the job entails. I'm sure I don't "clearly know" what the job entails, but I'd bet I have a fairly decent idea. It's not like we're talkin' about rocket science here. I envision it to be more relaxing to me personally than spending all day chasing after new business, meeting production goals, all at the same time while hoping/monitoring existing business on the books to make sure its not getting ready to fail, thus entering into an endless cycle of collections and foreclosures and attorney's. Education = Steady paycheck, endless demand, solid retirement, health care, recession proof job with summer's off (if you so choose). Sounds fucking rough.

Keep in mind that I clearly stated I was going to stick to a community MUCH smaller than Baltimore and San Diego. Where you live is your choice, not mine. Mommy and daddy haven't had to pay for my house, education, or car since I moved out at 18. The pay (and I predict the stress) is not nearly as great in a town with a population less than 10k. My guess is also that the pay of a teacher in San Diego still does not keep pace with the cost of living in San Diego. No first hand knowledge their either.

But to your point, The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. So who knows.

I've read a number of posts about you more or less stating you don't enjoy your job, or at least complaining quite a bit about it. Why do you do what you do, since nobody else would take the bait?

[False Alarm]

Here's a question:

Do all of you do the job that you would do if all things considered equal you could make the same sort of living doing that other job you hold as "ideal" in your heads, or do you do what you do now because it provides for a lifestyle that is comfortable and satisfying for you which the other job would not provide?
that ideal job for me is NBA shooting guard. it'd pay at least a million bones more a year than i get in my current job, even if i were one of the worst starters in the league. i don't do it cuz i'm too slow, have a bad handle, am really uncoordinated, am really weak, don't have a good basketball IQ, have a good-but-not-nearly-good-enough jumpshot, and am three to six inches too short.

i also would very much like to be a professional art thief, but i'm kind of afraid of guns if i wanted to be the smash-and-grab type, i'm a bad actor if i were gonna be more the grifter type, and my athletic limitations are described above if i wanted to be an old-fashioned second-story man. so that don't look good either.

now, if you talkin bout things that i can do, then, yes, i chose to go into a field that doesn't pay well but that gives me a lotta satisfaction. (so, to invert your formulation a bit, the lifestyle might be less comforting and satisfying, but the work itself is more comforting and satisfying.) i doubt i'd have any trouble training and becoming a pro in some much more lucrative fields (computers or law, for example), but the work'd bore me too much and i'd be fucking miserable. my family may not have as high a standard of living as a result, but materialism's a bad mufucka anyway and i want my kids to take that lesson to heart so it's all good. and, to be fair, my girl stacks a bit of cheese herself (quite a bit more than i do, actually). that makes it easier to justify my goin this route. we get by OK.

i hope i serve as a useful data point in your survey.

[False Alarm]

If I were filthy rich I'd be a history teacher, coaching the golf team on the side for a small Glasgow sized town. I think that would be a great, relaxing, a rewarding job.

it'd be nauseous for your students, though, havin to spend time with you and all.

[zero2056]

it'd be nauseous for your students, though, havin to spend time with you and all.

I love you too, FA :smooch:

[False Alarm]

aw shucks. :o

[Lori Burger]

:violin:

You're right. I don't have a hands-on view of what the job entails. I'm sure I don't "clearly know" what the job entails, but I'd bet I have a fairly decent idea. It's not like we're talkin' about rocket science here. I envision it to be more relaxing to me personally than spending all day chasing after new business, meeting production goals, all at the same time while hoping/monitoring existing business on the books to make sure its not getting ready to fail, thus entering into an endless cycle of collections and foreclosures and attorney's. Education = Steady paycheck, endless demand, solid retirement, health care, recession proof job with summer's off (if you so choose). Sounds fucking rough.

Keep in mind that I clearly stated I was going to stick to a community MUCH smaller than Baltimore and San Diego. Where you live is your choice, not mine. Mommy and daddy haven't had to pay for my house, education, or car since I moved out at 18. The pay (and I predict the stress) is not nearly as great in a town with a population less than 10k. My guess is also that the pay of a teacher in San Diego still does not keep pace with the cost of living in San Diego. No first hand knowledge their either.

But to your point, The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. So who knows.

I've read a number of posts about you more or less stating you don't enjoy your job, or at least complaining quite a bit about it. Why do you do what you do, since nobody else would take the bait?

I do it because I'm good at it, because I like the positive influence I can be for a kid, and I complain because that's my nature. I'd complain about anything if given the opportunity.

And still, you show no understanding of the numerous demands of teaching. If the stressors you've mentioned are the vast majority of what you deal with, then you've further punctuated my point. I don't feel like going into detail as to what being a high school teacher demands, so I won't, but suffice to say that your words clearly indicate that you haven't a clue. Sounds like you just hate your job to me.

And, I would never stick with a job I truly hated. I'd live off less money first. Life's too short. It's sad to me that so many Americans are so motivated by money that they forget about their own and their family's happiness.

Oh, and btw, I have a master's degree plus 12 grad-level credits and am in my eighth year, so I do pretty well ;)

[zero2056]

:deadhorse:

Well, I think this has been successfully talked to death.

I vote we find something new to quibble over! :D

[JVO]

Wow I missed out on quite alot!

Now for the important thing:

I would be a movie director, professional poker player or owner of the Denver Broncos.

Realistically I would like to be a Political Science Professor. It would entail me getting more education which I don't see happening but I suppose it is possible. I am pretty good at being a devils advocate so I think I could force students to think a lot, even if it was to prove that I am an idiot. I doubt I would enjoy teaching below college level. I don't want to teach nuts and bolts, I want to teach ideas and opinions. I have a feeling in my first year, a crazy parent would get me fired because I led the class in a discussion of the oppression of religion or some such thing.

[False Alarm]

Wow I missed out on quite alot!

Now for the important thing:

I would be a movie director, professional poker player or owner of the Denver Broncos.

Realistically I would like to be a Political Science Professor. It would entail me getting more education which I don't see happening but I suppose it is possible. I am pretty good at being a devils advocate so I think I could force students to think a lot, even if it was to prove that I am an idiot. I doubt I would enjoy teaching below college level. I don't want to teach nuts and bolts, I want to teach ideas and opinions. I have a feeling in my first year, a crazy parent would get me fired because I led the class in a discussion of the oppression of religion or some such thing.
dude, owners meetings would be hilarious if you owned the broncos and i used the funds from my art-theft career to buy the dolphins. we'd close down the hotel bar each night and make ridiculous trades, then trade the same players back to each other the next night. i would pledge to never deal with the chiefs and raiders as long as you never took calls from the bills and jets.

[JVO]

dude, owners meetings would be hilarious if you owned the broncos and i used the funds from my art-theft career to buy the dolphins. we'd close down the hotel bar each night and make ridiculous trades, then trade the same players back to each other the next night. i would pledge to never deal with the chiefs and raiders as long as you never took calls from the bills and jets.

Deal! If memory serves, the Fish have owned the Broncos over the last decade so I would probably be buying the drinks every year.


I want to be on the rules committee just so I can propose ridiculous rule changes every year like abolishing the punt and eliminating touchbacks. :thumbsup:

[bubz_bluez]

im not going to push the issue to any new height, but i had a interesting relationship with my Votech teacher... Garason had been a mechanic for 18 years. i remember he said one time... "As old as I am sometimes i wish i could go back to fixing a car. Trying to inspire these kids to fix shit instead of worrying about the damn stereo." I spent a week organizing the tool room. Once i was about finished doing this he came into the tool room and said something I don't think i will ever forget... Garason: "I think your going to be great whatever you choose to do. You have more of a passion for this job than anyone out there. You have the ability to pick something new up an obsessively practice it till you get it down."
then like two weeks later this prick Jared got in my face about how i alined his friends car... anyways it was about a month until the end of the year, so i got kicked out of vo-tech... i only had about three exsam's to complete an i would have been Ford certified<<new program offered to high schoolers. anyways the whole point of that story is that a lot of teachers find it hard to do they're jobs, find it hard not to complain about it....

im amazed that she has a masters in teaching! wow
i really hope that im making the right choice in the direction im headed ... career decisions are not easy....

bubs