Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#57777 - 07/29/11 05:37 PM Debt Ceiling
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen this come up (or maybe it's in a thread I'm not following).

What do you think of the current debt ceiling discussions? Relevant or waste of time? Educational demonstration of power politics or empty posturing being hyped up by the media?
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#57783 - 07/29/11 07:35 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
The problem, as usual, is to get behind all the political/partisan hot air. I'd say take a look at Michael Hudson's analysis.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#57813 - 07/30/11 08:49 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I'd say take a look at Michael Hudson's analysis.


Although this plays to my fears of a con job, he made at least two factual errors. The first, and most egregious, is that this is a faux crisis. On the contrary, it is quite real as this concerns our relationship to the creditors of our debt - many of whom are foreign countries, but the largest of which is a conglomeration of private banks we collectively call the Federal Reserve. This is way bigger than Wall Street, and even the Gecko's are nervous.

The second error, which is less forgivable, is the claim that $13 trillion was used in financial bailouts since 2008. This is just flatly false. The debt itself is only $14 trillion: $6 trillion pre-GWBush, $6 trillion GWBush, and $2 trillion Obama.

Like the author of this piece, I am a progressive. And like the author of this piece, I find Obama's policies to be a little less progressive than advertised on the campaign trail. But there are three branches of government, and the President is Constitutionally the least powerful by a long shot. Sure, it's an easy target because he's a figurehead, but the real problem lies in the lawmakers (Congress) and the laws they've made. And partly in the Constitution itself, but that's a whole other Can-O-Worms.

JK
_________________________



Top
#57814 - 07/30/11 09:56 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
The problem, of course, is that the two parties, which are basically just extensions of their constituencies, face the dilemma of having to compromise while remaining true to their ideology. My guess is that politicians left and right will cave in and compromise at the last minute, which might give them political cover by saying they stood firm as long as possible but in the end had to give in to avoid an economic crisis.

Itíll be interesting to see which way the political winds blow after this is all said and done. Some will certainly see the GOP as having taken the country hostage by holding so strongly to their no new taxes stance, while others will see it as an act of courage. Some will say that Obama A) Gave up too much to the GOP, B) Didnít give up enough to the GOP, C) Needs to accept the lionís share of the blame because heís the president and the buck stops with him. One thing is for sure - the voters will have plenty to say, even if the vast majority of them will have no idea what theyíre talking about.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#57817 - 07/30/11 11:42 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: William Wright]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Remember, we heard all of this 'the sky is falling' rhetoric for TARP, the Obama Stimulus, and even Cash for Clunkers. In all cases, the people responsible for the disaster were rewarded for their poor stewardship and outright misdeeds.

In general, I disagree with Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Fascists/Liberals or whatever name they are going by these days. However, the article MAA links to is correct.

There is a saying that goes something like, 'If you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you own the bank a billion dollars you own the bank.'

The above article call our current state of affairs as drifting toward a neo-feudalism. Sure. I have heard this described many ways - feudalism, oligarchy, Crony Capitalism. I think technically, the political scientists would call it Fascism. I like to call it Prison Planet doctrine advancing the Reptilian Agenda.

In any case, here is the game kids, if we do not raise the debt limit, a whole of games and shenanigans that are played with budget will have to end. Some hard choices will have to be made. A lot of Washington cronies may not get paid. Govt contractors will have their contracts terminated and govt employees might actually have to start doing their jobs (horrors!). A lot of very wasteful spending will have to end and the govt might actually have to prioritize spending and spend the people's money more wisely. This will be an uncomfortable phase shift in Washington thinking.

Right now, the Federal Reserve Bank prints money and then loans it to the likes of Citibank, GE, and BOA at an interest rate of less than 1%. These financial institutions then loan that money back to you in the form of mortgages, credit cards, and car loans at a rate ranging from 5-24%. When you hear the Washington Chattering Class talk about how not raising the debt limit will cause a rise in interest rates, this is the interest rate they are talking about. In essence, banks will no longer get free money from The Fed to loan to you at usury interest rates. Given current market conditions, it is very unlikely that the consumer interest market could bear higher rates. In other words, if banks try to pass the hike in interest rates on to you, most people will simply not borrow. Banks will simply have to accept a smaller profit margin. And, there will be an additional side effect, large banks will lose their competitive advantage against small banks. Smaller banks and credit unions cannot borrow the those large sums of cheap money from The Fed. They are much more dependent on the traditional banking practice of lending money based on deposits on hand. Crony Capitalist hate this because their whole business model is based on getting preferred treatment from the govt.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#57821 - 07/30/11 12:50 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Fist]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fist
if we do not raise the debt limit, a whole of games and shenanigans that are played with budget will have to end.


Perhaps. But they will be "played out" on the backs of those least capable of adjusting. Lenders and speculators (read: the uber-rich) will suffer little since they will shift the burden to the borrowers (read: everyone else).

The bigger problem here is that the economy we have in the US is top heavy and has little to no manufacturing strength and very little consumption ability. We are literally teetering on a much larger precipice than is being gamed at the moment.

Consumers drive any real economy, since demand without supply creates supply, whereas supply without demand simply rots in the storehouse. Our policies should therefore be consumer-oriented, yet they are supplier-oriented for some strange reason. And I say strange only because the Richie Riches that are playing this game via the government should know better. Like the slack-jawed poor Southern Republicans, they continue to work against their own best interests.

JK
_________________________



Top
#57824 - 07/30/11 01:19 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:

Perhaps. But they will be "played out" on the backs of those least capable of adjusting. Lenders and speculators (read: the uber-rich) will suffer little since they will shift the burden to the borrowers (read: everyone else).


Such as? Please give me your top three or concerns on how not raising the debt limit will hurt "the little people." And perhaps more to the point, how will not raising the debt limit will hurt you.

I ask this because I don't think very many people actually understand monetary policy and basic economics. I think most people have been fed an ideological narrative and fill in the gaps of their knowledge with other people's talking points.

_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#57860 - 07/31/11 08:08 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Fist]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Please give me your top three or concerns on how not raising the debt limit will hurt "the little people." And perhaps more to the point, how will not raising the debt limit will hurt you.

I ask this because I don't think very many people actually understand monetary policy and basic economics. I think most people have been fed an ideological narrative and fill in the gaps of their knowledge with other people's talking points.


I hate typing and yet you ask me to type, fair enough.

What is the "debt ceiling"? Simply put it is the point at which our incurred debt crosses the line of "we refuse to pay".

Why is debt incurred at the rate it is? Interest on the existing debt.

Why do we have the debt we do? Purposeless wars and inefficient government. Or to be more "fair and balanced," government spending has been outstripping revenue for a long time (each such FY is a deficit year adding to incurred debt).

Why does this happen? Democrats love to spend, Republicans love to reduce revenue. When you get them into a room, House, or Senate together, you have a serious problem.

What would not raising the artificial debt ceiling do actually? It would devalue The United States of America. More specifically it would devalue Treasury securities.

Why does this matter? Unless we're willing to become an isolationist country and repudiate our debts, we are simply a part of the world market, though a vital one. It matters because lenders (such as China, the Fed, Japan, UK, Taiwan, Russia, et al.) will view this as a refusal to repay loans (default).

OK, so why does THAT matter? Like it or not, this is a world economy based on credit. When you don't pay your bills, what happens? Interest rates go up. And when they go up for the USA, they go up for damn near everybody that isn't living in a mud hut somewhere.

So that means what exactly? Everything becomes more expensive (overnight inflation) because producers always pass their costs to consumers. In a US economy with 10% unemployment and a devalued manufacturing base, this will result in minimally, a 12% unemployment and even less productivity (PPF).

How do you make that jump? Every business borrows money. The price of borrowing money just went up. In a bad <real economy> to boot. Sure, Wall Street speculators have seen a "recovery," but a jobless recovery is no recovery.

/dialogue

Let me ask you to consider the following example, much simplified:

Joe Citizen loses his job and so has less dollars to spend in the economy. As a result, company X takes in less of Joe's money and has to lay off Sam Walters. Sam's decreased pocketbook (combined with Joe's) means that companies Y and Z see less business, since both Joe and Sam used to shop at both places.

Now Company Y and Company Z need to downsize due to sales volume decrease, which leads to Matt, Harry, Bill, Tim, Jim, and Ted. And companies A, B, C, and D. And so on.

This is the problem we already had.

Not raising the debt ceiling is like throwing gasoline on this burning fire.

JK
_________________________



Top
#57869 - 07/31/11 12:14 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Oh dear, it's worse than I thought...

 Quote:
What is the "debt ceiling"? Simply put it is the point at which our incurred debt crosses the line of "we refuse to pay".


Ah, no. The Federal govt 'borrows' 42 cents of out of every dollar it takes in as taxes. In other words, 42% of the federal budget is financed on credit. The debt ceiling is our credit limit. Only Congress (the House in particular) has the legal authority to say how much money the Federal govt is authorized to borrow.

 Quote:
Why is debt incurred at the rate it is? Interest on the existing debt.


Ah, no. Again, we put 42% of all of our federal spending on the credit card. Imagine if you made $30K a year and then put an additional $13K on your credit card every year. In 10 years you would be sitting on $130K in credit card debt. How long do you think people would keep lending you money? Right the the US is sitting on $14 trillion in debt. How long can we keep this game up?

 Quote:
Why do we have the debt we do? Purposeless wars and inefficient government. Or to be more "fair and balanced," government spending has been outstripping revenue for a long time (each such FY is a deficit year adding to incurred debt).


Yep!

 Quote:
Why does this happen? Democrats love to spend, Republicans love to reduce revenue. When you get them into a room, House, or Senate together, you have a serious problem.


Pretty much, except both parties love to spend money on absolute bullshit. Republicans love to spend money 'defense'. I would argue that about half of all 'defense' spending is pure grade-A bullshit.

On "revenue", remember what we are really talking about is TAXES. Keep in mind that money is 'fluid.' Quite actually, money moves much like a heavy fluid. It is very unlikely that govt will take money out of the 'pool' of available money in the private sector and spend it more efficiently than it would otherwise be spent by individuals looking after their own best interests. It like saying you are going fill up the money pool buy taking money out of one end of the pool and pour it in the other end. In my own personal case, I can guarantee you that I will do more with my own money (spend it more wisely, more efficiently, and on better projects) than the govt will if I give them my money in the form of taxes.

 Quote:
What would not raising the artificial debt ceiling do actually? It would devalue The United States of America. More specifically it would devalue Treasury securities.


What?! Ah, no (again). Actually it is the EXACT opposite! Where are you getting this stuff? Ever heard of Supply and Demand? Printing more money, issuing more debt, and buying more on credit will DEVALUE the US dollar and Treasury securities in general. The reason credit rating agency are talking about downgrading the US credit rating is because a lot of folks are questioning if we will really be able to keep this charade up for much longer.

And the debt ceiling is NOT artificial. It is quite real. Every individual, business, and govt has (whether they know it or not) a credit limit - a limit beyond which no lender will trust them with any more borrowed money. Fortunately, in the US we have our own legally imposed limit. This current political fight is far preferable to just waking up one day and realizing that China will no longer lend us any more money.

 Quote:
Why does this matter? Unless we're willing to become an isolationist country and repudiate our debts, we are simply a part of the world market, though a vital one. It matters because lenders (such as China, the Fed, Japan, UK, Taiwan, Russia, et al.) will view this as a refusal to repay loans (default).


Rest assured, we will pay our creditors first. Remember, we borrow 42 cents on the dollar. That still gives us 58 cents on the dollar of REAL tax dollars to actually pay the bills with. In 2011, interest on the debt is about 5% of the budget. This will use up about 8 cents of that 58 cents of real money that we have. We will then have to make some hard choices as to how we will spend the other 50 cents.

 Quote:
OK, so why does THAT matter? Like it or not, this is a world economy based on credit. When you don't pay your bills, what happens? Interest rates go up. And when they go up for the USA, they go up for damn near everybody that isn't living in a mud hut somewhere.


Like I said, we will pay our creditors first. There is will be no "default". The 'default' word is a boogieman being thrown around to scare people into supporting raising the debt limit. We see this same trick all of the time. Most notably we saw it used to justify the war in Iraq, TARP, and the Obama Stimulus. Don't believe the hype.

And interest rates will go up eventually when our creditors begin to demand a higher interest rate for the risk they are taking by lending us more money that we may eventually not be able to pay back, or when we do pay it back it will be in highly devalued dollars.

 Quote:
So that means what exactly? Everything becomes more expensive (overnight inflation) because producers always pass their costs to consumers. In a US economy with 10% unemployment and a devalued manufacturing base, this will result in minimally, a 12% unemployment and even less productivity (PPF).


We are already devaluing our currency. Have you looked at food and fuel prices lately? That is because we have to buy things on a global commodities market with dollars that are worth less and less each day. Raising the debt limit, printing more money, and buying more things on credit will not strengthen the dollar at all. We have had a 'weak dollar' policy since Greenspan in the 90's and the current group running The Fed and the US Treasury show no signs of turning this around.

 Quote:
How do you make that jump? Every business borrows money. The price of borrowing money just went up. In a bad <real economy> to boot. Sure, Wall Street speculators have seen a "recovery," but a jobless recovery is no recovery.


Oh brother... do you read the paper at all? US business are siting on a fat wad of cash. In fact, Obama brings this up all of the time as a reason to tax. If there is very slow economic activity a business has little reason to borrow cash to expand their business or cover expenses. As I have already stated, the real people who are worried about the debt ceiling are large corporate banks who are quite happy to borrow all of that cheap money from The Fed so they can loan it back to you at a much higher rate. These people are quite happy to crash the US economy because they will get paid either way. Remember, these are the same people who asked the American people to bail them out because they were "too big to fail." Yeah, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....

 Quote:
...Matt, Harry, Bill, Tim, Jim, and Ted.


Their jobs have already gone to China and India, unless of course they want to work at WalMart. This is why Starbucks has the most highly educated work force in the US - new college grads have an unemployment rate of over 40%. Raising the debt limit will do fuck all to change this economic reality. Would you have me believe that if we raise the debt ceiling the US unemployment rate will go down?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#57876 - 07/31/11 08:02 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Fist]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Fact of the matter is the debt ceiling has to be increased and it will be. The Federal government does not bring enough money to pay for all the things it spends money which is why we have debt in the first place. The idea that we have enough revenuess to pay all the things the American people want and pay interest on our debt is laughable.

The debt has to be addressed if there ever is any hope of ever creating a balance budget, that means cutting spending and raising taxes at some point in the near future. This debt ceiling debate has highlighted thd lack of mathematic talent and intelligence in general of elected officials. This is just another example of the American people wanting something but not being willing to put up anything to get it.

Sadly the GOP claims that it understands these macroeconomic concept but in reality they have no idea what they are doing.

Top
#57880 - 08/01/11 11:56 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Does anyone else see how stupid this whole debt thing is when considering the fact that money doesn't actually exist? It has no real value and when shit really hits the fan people will see just how useless those pieces of paper and coins are. The same can be said for things like gold and silver. The true worth is found in bullets, alcohol, tobacco, food and water.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#57895 - 08/01/11 09:28 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Ophelia Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/01/11
Posts: 9
Loc: Portland, ME
That is actually what is happening in Zimbabawe. For a loaf of bread it costs millions of Zimbabawe money. The weird thing is that the American dollare has more value over there, even if it is just a dollare. In fact, merchants want gold instead of Zimbabawe money, so people are dying and suffering over there.
It really sucks.
_________________________
Yahweh is the only god I would have a party with.

Top
#57904 - 08/02/11 08:19 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Fist]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fist
Oh dear, it's worse than I thought...


I expect at least one drink before you start calling me dear ;\)

 Originally Posted By: Fist


 Quote:
What is the "debt ceiling"? Simply put it is the point at which our incurred debt crosses the line of "we refuse to pay".


Ah, no. The Federal govt 'borrows' 42 cents of out of every dollar it takes in as taxes. In other words, 42% of the federal budget is financed on credit. The debt ceiling is our credit limit. Only Congress (the House in particular) has the legal authority to say how much money the Federal govt is authorized to borrow.


Well, you said pretty much the same thing I did, just from a different angle. The debt we are incurring that would have passed us over the "limit" would have continued to accrue even if Congress refused to raise the limit. Those debts would have been legitimate, and Congress' refusal to raise the limit would have been a default.

 Originally Posted By: Fist


 Quote:
Why is debt incurred at the rate it is? Interest on the existing debt.


Ah, no. Again, we put 42% of all of our federal spending on the credit card. Imagine if you made $30K a year and then put an additional $13K on your credit card every year. In 10 years you would be sitting on $130K in credit card debt. How long do you think people would keep lending you money? Right the the US is sitting on $14 trillion in debt. How long can we keep this game up?


We're talking about two different things here, and I considered conceding the point out of laziness. My point was to question how we get halfway through a fiscal year, with budgets already passed, and still hit a "debt limit"? Your point, quite valid in and of itself, is why do we pass these ridiculous budgets in the first place? Point conceded.


 Originally Posted By: Fist

 Quote:
What would not raising the artificial debt ceiling do actually? It would devalue The United States of America. More specifically it would devalue Treasury securities.


What?! Ah, no (again). Actually it is the EXACT opposite! Where are you getting this stuff? Ever heard of Supply and Demand? Printing more money, issuing more debt, and buying more on credit will DEVALUE the US dollar and Treasury securities in general. The reason credit rating agency are talking about downgrading the US credit rating is because a lot of folks are questioning if we will really be able to keep this charade up for much longer.

And the debt ceiling is NOT artificial. It is quite real. Every individual, business, and govt has (whether they know it or not) a credit limit - a limit beyond which no lender will trust them with any more borrowed money. Fortunately, in the US we have our own legally imposed limit. This current political fight is far preferable to just waking up one day and realizing that China will no longer lend us any more money.


The debt limit has been raised some 50+ times in our history as a debtor nation. It had never before been an issue of such political gamesmanship (congrats, Obama, you are weak). And it's not just the amount, although you raise interesting concerns regarding the overall trend.

Let me clip the rest (I believe our strongest disagreements occurred above), and conclude with my personal position on the USA.

We are the best and also the worst nation on Earth. The things we do right (all loosely based in either personal freedom or ingenuity/entrepreneurship) have carried us. The things we do wrong (all loosely based in religion, government, and overall laziness) have made us a junk nation with a vanishing middle class.

I've long been a believer that we need a replacement for the Constitution, and yet I see no realpraxis to get there. A thriving business will completely overhaul its model and even management if necessary to retain and gain market share. We're stuck with a couple of rooms full of talking heads in stuffy suits who are playing a miniaturized version of Risk with our future. Not cool.

JK
_________________________



Top
#57906 - 08/02/11 01:11 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3125
General reply

Looks like the debt ceiling has been raised.. not really a surprise in my opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14379240

 Originally Posted By: BBC
The US Senate has passed a deal struck between Republicans, Democrats and President Barack Obama to increase the US debt ceiling and avert a default.

The bill passed the Senate by 74 votes to 26. Mr Obama is due to speak shortly and then sign the deal into law.
...
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#57919 - 08/02/11 11:51 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
The debt limit has been raised some 50+ times in our history as a debtor nation. It had never before been an issue of such political gamesmanship (congrats, Obama, you are weak).

Iím not sure any other president couldíve produced a better result given the political climate in Washington today. The GOP was determined to fight Obama every step of the way. He couldíve played nice and given them what they wanted, which wouldíve made him appear weak to his base, or he couldíve held firm to the principles of his party and appeared weak to the general public who expected him to get a deal passed. In the end he, and Congress, compromised, which had to be done but disappointed both the right and the left. This was just ugly.

 Quote:
I've long been a believer that we need a replacement for the Constitution...

How would you change the Constitution? Iíd like to see your rough draft (or a final draft if you have it handy).
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#57941 - 08/03/11 07:50 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: William Wright]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Personally I did not see all that much compromise between the two parties. From what I saw the Dems gave in on some of the spending that they wanted while the Repubs still reject the idea that the country needs more tax revenue. For all of the "tea party" influence I find it interesting that they ended up with a package that cut less spending than was originally proposed by congressional leaders.

The "tea party" may have good intentions but they have at no point offered anything other than whining and complaining, they no solutions. Honestly I'm really tired of all the bitching and moaning from these pseudoconstitutionalist fools.

Top
#57948 - 08/03/11 09:58 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
The debt limit has been raised some 50+ times in our history as a debtor nation. It had never before been an issue of such political gamesmanship (congrats, Obama, you are weak).

Iím not sure any other president couldíve produced a better result given the political climate in Washington today. The GOP was determined to fight Obama every step of the way. He couldíve played nice and given them what they wanted, which wouldíve made him appear weak to his base, or he couldíve held firm to the principles of his party and appeared weak to the general public who expected him to get a deal passed. In the end he, and Congress, compromised, which had to be done but disappointed both the right and the left. This was just ugly.

Actually Obama could have invoked the 14th Amendment, raised the debt limit by Executive Order, and told the GOP to go fuck itself. In the unlikely event that the House voted to impeach him over this, the Senate would never convict, and he'd be a national hero with a shoe-in reelection.

But what everyone's missing here is that Obama is not a people's President but a big business one, and that explains why he made his usual Ifeelyourpain speeches but ultimately danced to the GOP tune, hanging the Congressional Democrats and the rabble beyond the Beltway out to dry.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd start looking now for an Obama-replacement in this next Presidential race, because his popular base is disintegrating from disgust [as finally happened to LBJ]. This opens the door to a strong, charismatic Republican messiah-candidate [Remember Ronald Reagan, or even Richard Nixon?]. The Dems' only prayer is that the GOP still can't find a candidate who isn't a bozo. Tough luck for Arnie that he wasn't born here, except that he too now has some problems from unauthorized porking. Amazing how much of human history has been determined by men thinking with the little head instead of the big one.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#57950 - 08/03/11 11:03 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Well I must disagree with you Michael the Dems best chance isn't going to be replacing Obama in 2012. What they should is try to get a GOP candidate like Michelle Bachmann in a good to win the primary. In others drum some artificial support and crush her in the general. Now I know that's easier said than done and rather unlikely but I none the less think that the best way to beat the Republicans right now is just to let them dig their own graves because the more they talk the less the public tends to like them.
Top
#57959 - 08/04/11 03:20 AM Super Congress anyone? [Re: Meph9]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

I'm not saying much so I apologize now if it is too short but I usually stay away from this forum as politics are not my cup of tea.

I see nothing here about the new Super Congress that is being put into place while all were distracted worrying about a default that would never happen.

Is it unconstitutional and if it is what did all you voters have to say about it? What are you going to do to change it vote your way out?

"Barack" supporters are you getting the change you wanted or expected?

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#57961 - 08/04/11 07:23 AM Re: Super Congress anyone? [Re: ta2zz]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
"Barack" supporters are you getting the change you wanted or expected?


Not in the least. But that speaks more to my optimistic naivete in '07-'08 than anything else.

The problem is structural insofar as we've ceased being a country based on genuine first principles (arche) and devolved into a heap of legislative garbage. If you visit a university library, odds are they have a separate law library, the sheer size of which should make one's head turn exorcist-style.

Law has ceased being principle and become instead "if A then B, except if C and not-A, then D unless E, provided not-F, in which latter case G unless H, I, and J, which K, otherwise L, or M (if not-F), etc." This is due, in my estimation, to the structure we carried over from Great Britain (mainly common law + precedent) and also the amendable nature of the Constitution itself. Band-Aids and Silly Putty replace genuine paradigm shifts, and so our government will never be the best and brightest, rather the most connected within that very same government - i.e. those who "play ball".

Forget the fact that the system is being gamed against its own best interests, many failed corporations made this blunder as well. Forget the fact that the average American is more concerned with the final vote on American Idol than in the outcome of a POTUS election. And forget the fact that the average American is a slack-jawed hick who worships a homophobic, sexist imaginary friend just because his parents were too stupid to tell him there is no Santa Claus.

Just like a major corporation with no real sense of stockholder ownership (because it's spread too thin), we are being driven to disaster via failed models (trickle down, cut to success) enforced by myopic executives who care more for their quarterly profit numbers than they do for the overall health of their company. After all, they're term-limited, and will get fitted with that "golden parachute" while the rest of the plane goes down in flames.

The primary failure is in the inability to recognize the organic nature of a healthy society/economic model. "Rugged individualism" is a blade that cuts both ways. And right now, it's cutting the midsection and spilling guts all over the place. The only question for me, moving forward, is whether this structural flaw will be realized in time. I'm not Nero, and I don't have a fiddle (lyre), but Rome is burning.

JK
_________________________



Top
#57972 - 08/04/11 03:49 PM Re: Super Congress anyone? [Re: ta2zz]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Well this whole "super congress/debt cogress" is really just another so I don't see anything unconstitutional about it. That in addition to the fact that out the 535 or so members of Congress only about 35 actually give a damn about the people they serve I don't see any reason why we should have a couple hundred more idiots in the room when a couple dozen will suffice.
Top
#57987 - 08/05/11 08:02 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Where is TR now that we need him?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#57998 - 08/06/11 10:15 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
If the Democrats had any brains, they'd start looking now for an Obama-replacement in this next Presidential race.

I donít think the Dems finding a replacement for Obama would be a good idea for a number of reasons.

A) For all his problems, Obamaís popularity rating is still close to fifty percent. Not exactly something to brag about, but it suggests that he, like Bill Clinton, is a teflon president that any Republican challenger will have to take very seriously.

B) The elephant (donkey?) in the room Ė heís the first black president. Thatís a huge source of pride to the black community, and most of them (and other minorities, who collectively arenít really a minority anymore) want him to succeed every bit as much as the GOP wants him to fail.

C) Heís an incumbent. Not an advantage, you say? To that I give you three words: George W. Bush.

D) Obama knows how to campaign. Heís a master at delivering the soaring rhetoric that gets crowds fired up. I donít know of any GOP contender, or any other current politician for that matter, who can match his charisma. The closest examples I can think of are Reagan and Clinton, who both got reelected.

E) Who does the GOP even have, anyway? Whoís Obamaís big threat? Mitt Romney? The GOP canít even get excited about him, let alone the rest of the nation. Michelle Bachman? Too much of a religious right-winger for mainstream Americaís taste. Rick Perry? Perhaps. The Texas governor has quietly been gaining support and may emerge as a dark horse, as Obama did four years ago.

F) What Democrat would replace Obama? Hillary? John Edwards? Their pool of electable candidates is even thinner than the GOPís.

Iím not saying that Obamaís a great president or that heís a shoo-in for reelection. Iím just saying that heís the best chance for keeping a Democrat in the White House.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#58121 - 08/10/11 10:52 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: William Wright]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
There has been some talk of Jerry Brown running for president, although I question if he would run against a Democrat. It may happen after the next Republican (I am not a Republican).

Brown is interesting, He may actually be a qualified candidate. 3 time Gov or Calif., Mayor of Oakland, Attorney General of Calif., and former Presidential candidate. A social liberal and fiscal conservative. He had a budget surplus as governor of California, before Reagan followed and spent Calif, into bankruptcy. Not certain at the moment what his age is, but he has experience.


Edited by creativevalue (08/10/11 10:58 PM)

Top
#58147 - 08/12/11 11:00 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
I have to agree with Will on this the Dems have no one to replace Obama with due to the fact that there's no heavy hitters on that side that are going to be around.
Edwards' career is over
Hilary is leaving politics
Some one like Jerry Brown has no chance of being relavant enough to raise any money

In spite of all that the Obama/Biden is still pretty strong against any Republican. And since it seems that the right is buying to much of its own propaganda(the fact the Bachmann, Gingrich and Herman Cain are candidates is a testament to that fact) things don't look all that good for them

Top
#58156 - 08/13/11 01:06 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
I agree with you that Hilary will not want to give up her position in the Obama administration to run against him, and that John Edward's career is over. It is however a sad testimony to our political system that money, not qualifications, dictates who will be President. Jerry Brown is the best qualified candidate. I am not certain if I agree he could not raise the money, I think that a California candidate of his stature may be able to raise the money, but I seriously question if he would run against a sitting Democratic President. Andrew Cuomo does not have the experience, but may make a good running-mate for the NY money.

Obama has not paid down the debt, he has only made it worse. Democratic Presidents have a history of paying down the US debt, and Republicans of increasing the debt, usually with military spending, this worries me. There are a few other things that concern me about a second Obama Administration.

You are right the Republicans are in little better position. I refuse to vote for Romney. His father was the Governor of Michigan who gave the order to shoot civilians with live ammunition that began the Detroit riots of 1967. I do not trust that Romney is not fanatical enough to do even worse. Perry is an Evangelist, if he is elected I will leave the US, continue to earn my doctorate, and be writing from Europe. I don't see anyone else capable of winning the election on the Republican side.

Top
#58161 - 08/13/11 03:35 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
I think you misunnderstad some of what I said

Hillary is leaving politics as for good. Mrs.Clinton has said that her current job is going to be her last in government. Although she would be a strong contender she also hinted that she has no intention of running for the white house again.

On the topic of the presdent and the debt you are correct that Obama has not paid it down, but neither has any other president. As far as the republicans go on that same topic I would say that it is not military spending that has increased the debt it's bringing down revenue. The GOP has this idiotic belief that spending too much is different from having revenue too low.

Mitt Romney is not fanatical, his problem is he has no genuine convictions. Romney is the kind of "multiple choice" candidate who's willing to say anything for some attention.

Rick Perry is an evangelical xtian type who subscribes to the same mythical xtianity mindset that is becoming so prevalent amongst the GOP. People like him attempt to rewrite history to prove that the founding fathers were theocrats who wanted to create some form xtian nation. As such they think that anyone who is not one of them has no right to consider themselves American. Lastly and perhaps most interesting is the fact that they have deluded themselves into believing that the majority of Americans share these beliefs.

I would say that this is the thing about the 2012 elections that presents the most danger for the country. We've already seen how the republican have used the bad economy to ramp up their social engineering policies. I would agree that if someone like that wins that this country is not going to be a great place to be. Hopefully the public will realize that if we want a nation whaere people have equal rights that we can't afford to pick them.

Top
#58167 - 08/13/11 04:34 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: creativevalue
Obama has not paid down the debt, he has only made it worse. Democratic Presidents have a history of paying down the US debt, and Republicans of increasing the debt, usually with military spending, this worries me. There are a few other things that concern me about a second Obama Administration.


As with me. The really fucked up thing, though, is that all of these "insoluble" problems in Washington have rather simple real solutions. Which means that the system is intent on gaming the naive rather than building a country.

Take social security for a second. Simple solution: eliminate the FICA cap. Problem solved. No benefit cuts, no raising the retirement age. Just simply, problem solved.

How about Defense? See Ron Paul, 'nuff said.

Medicare/Medicaid? Keep paying the middle-man, and we'll keep getting diminishing returns in healthcare as a whole. Simple solution: single-payer. Any insurance model works the best when it has the largest base against which to offset risk. In health(care), the only base which makes any sense is the entirety of the citizenry. We can choose not to drive a car, we can't choose not to get sick. And the Hippocratic Oath ensures someone pays in any case, most often, at a needless markup. The bill on my appendectomy was over ten grand. Sure, it saved my life, but I was under the knife for about an hour. Did I have insurance? I forget. But what I do know is that I didn't pay a dime on that shit, and it was over ten years ago.

And then there's the shit we don't DO, that we should be DOING (read: infrastructure). "Common Welfare," and all that Constitutional shit. But hey, we can always afford to subsidize multi-billion dollar multinational corporations with taxpayer $ so CEO's can fly in private jets to their "retreats" filled with prostitutes and drugs.

Speaking of which, all "consensual crimes" need to be legalized ASAP, and taxed. Didn't Capone teach us a damned thing?

It would take me five minutes to balance the Federal Budget. Well, actually, I misspoke. It would take me five minutes to create a surplus in the Federal Budget. And a better country to boot.

JK
_________________________



Top
#58171 - 08/13/11 05:08 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Too bad reality is not actually that simple. The nation faces many large and complex problems whichwill require complex solution. The idea that all the nation's issues can be solved with "common sense solutions" as many republicans lately have been saying is a bit illogical.

How would you solve the actual problem with social security which is the fact that the system is designed for current workers to support retirees and in a few decades we'll have more retirees than workers

When has the country ever benefitted from isolationism? As entertaining as Mr.Paul is he's completely wrong because frankly isolation only gives our enemies the ability to sneak up before stabbing us in the back

What about education otherwise known as that thing nobody ever actually attempts to fix despite the fact that it's vital to our long term economic competitiveness

These problems are not simple. But I will say that congress does make many things much harder than they actually need to be.

Top
#58173 - 08/13/11 05:30 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Meph9
Too bad reality is not actually that simple. The nation faces many large and complex problems whichwill require complex solution. The idea that all the nation's issues can be solved with "common sense solutions" as many republicans lately have been saying is a bit illogical.


I'm no Republican.

 Originally Posted By: Meph9
How would you solve the actual problem with social security which is the fact that the system is designed for current workers to support retirees and in a few decades we'll have more retirees than workers


This is a short term (generational) problem, which will disappear after the retirement of the Boomer gen. I gave the solution: eliminate the FICA cap.

 Originally Posted By: Meph9
When has the country ever benefitted from isolationism? As entertaining as Mr.Paul is he's completely wrong because frankly isolation only gives our enemies the ability to sneak up before stabbing us in the back


Au contraire. WE have been our own biggest enemy by our pointless interventionism. The CIA created Al-Quaida, remember? The WMD's that Iraq actually had at one point, guess where those came from? US. Funny story: prior to the first Iraq war, Saddam asked our permission before invading Kuwait. Guess what our ambassador told him? (Hint: it wasn't "no"). Defense is not neo-con nation building. Defense is not Imperialism. It's DEFENSE.

 Originally Posted By: Meph9
What about education otherwise known as that thing nobody ever actually attempts to fix despite the fact that it's vital to our long term economic competitiveness


Sure, education is a big part of my vision for the Federal government (1/3 to be precise). First, teachers' unions need to be crushed. Second, full education needs to be completely underwritten for all citizens (note: the concept of citizenship is very important to my model). Third, teachers need to be incentivized monetarily for producing results, and disincentivized careerwise for consistent failure. There are many models which have proven themselves successful on micro-scales (e.g. Montessori), these need to be driven through requisite competition via citizen demand.

JK

p.s. sure, things are complicated, but not nearly as complicated as it's made to look by the talking heads.
_________________________



Top
#58190 - 08/14/11 03:16 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jason King]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
There is some truth to Jason King's analysis of Social Security. A slight increase in social security taxes, something minimal like .025% would make social security solvent in perpetuity.

As for education. Taxpayer money should only go to the public school system and State Universities. I would cease all funding to private and religious schools. People are free to send their children to private schools if they want, but not at taxpayer expense. I would then fully subsidize the State Universities to greatly reduce tuition. With reduced tuition at State Universities there would no longer be the need for government funded student loans. Tuition grants for needy students should again only be available to the State Universities who charge reduced tuition. This makes a lot of sense. State Universities have better facilities, adhere to civil rights legislation, pay twice the salary as some of their private counterparts, and have viable unions for employees. The quality at most State Universitites is regulated and monitored, giving a safe education for students, rather than the often poor quality educations offered at many small private schools, and the brainwashing of many small religious schools. There are some private schools that are worth keeping, examples being the Ivy League, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford. These quality schools should be nationalized becoming State Universities so they will keep State funding and be monitored as to quality, civil liberties, and be federally funded as to tuition and research grants.

Civil Rights in the schools is important, for example a student who may be from an alternative background, ex. raised as a Satanist, or any other religion, must have an equal right to an education and human treatment.

We also need a national Anti-Bully Law in the Public schools making the parents liable for bullying. My town just passed one. No child should be afraid to go to school.

As a side note there is only one Republican Candidate that I take seriously. That is Jimmy McMillan originally of the "Rent is Too Damn High Party" As he says, the Rent is Just Too Damn High! Otherwise Jerry Brown is my candidate and I am a Democrat and Socialist.

Here is the Jimmy McMillan website.

http://mcmillan2012.com/tv-radio.htm


Edited by creativevalue (08/14/11 03:19 PM)

Top
#58192 - 08/14/11 05:06 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Public education's biggest problem is not money it's curriculum. The reality of it is we spend more than enough on education it's just that the money we spend ends up wasted which even means the best public schools are only offering a substandard educational oppurtunity.
If anything we should model our higher education after Europe where merit not money ensures you a spot at university.

All American students already have a legal right to an education so this is nonpoint

There is no reason we need to waste time on silly antibullying laws because these types of legislation never change anything. It comes down to the fact that we already have criminal standards for assualt, harassment etc. what can bullying possibly include that we don't already have laws against? You can't legislate away the mean and scary parts of life to suggest other wise is foolish.

Top
#58194 - 08/14/11 07:54 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
There are some classes in most schools which could be eliminated, and also some programs which should be offered.

A state controlled university system in the USA would be very similar to the European system, but it would be necessary to add the civil rights protections necessary for American society, and that includes greater accessibility, as in the US most state universities originate in the agricultural colleges.

Most European universities are state controlled. As a result tuition is relatively low, and admission is more difficult. In Europe it is very difficult to gain admission to university. Most students are channeled at a younger age into trades. Initially this looks good, as a good electrician may make more money than a teacher with a Ph.D. But the opportunity to improve your position is not available to most, only those few with the best education or talent. Your life would also be determined at a younger age which would limit oportunity to change your life.

I have a friend who went to school in the Soviet Union. She was told what to study, told what school to go to, and upon graduation had a state mandated job waiting for her. What she never had was choice. It did not matter if she wanted or liked the subject. She did what she was told to do, according to her ability, however that was determined by the state. She also had job security and a meaningful degree.

My choice is to nationalize the schools, but to preserve civil rights, improve quality for all students, and to offer more opportunity to those who seek to improve their lives.

I think the biggest waste is the money spent by students and government on the "private degree mills" that charge high tuition and offer a subpar liberal arts education without career direction.

Note: The term degree mill means a private for-profit institution that charges students high tuition and "mills" degrees to take the money.

All state universities are monitored for quality, civil rights, union rights for employees, and to keep tuition costs reasonable.

The anti-bully laws may not seem like a lot to you as an adult, but to a child, who is being bullied, they are really important. Bullycide (suicide due to bullying) has become a serious problem in the modern schools. You may be too mature now to be aware of this newer problem, but it exists and is a growing problem in the schools.


Edited by creativevalue (08/14/11 08:13 PM)

Top
#58196 - 08/14/11 11:12 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Personally I think considering oppurtunties to change one's life are of no importance. If thtat person is not willing to work hard enough to get into university that's their problem and their's alone.

How much can the average middle class student "change their life" without going into a whole lot of debt? There is no reason that those with the drive and intelligence to acheive should not be rewarded for that effort.

Every public and most private schools are already monitored and subscribe to equal rights policies so there is no need to add any additional considerations.

Lastly on the topic of bullying can you inform me of anything that could be constituted as bullying that isn't already against the rules/law?
Fact is there are none thus we does not need to waste time creating legislation to make actions that are already against the law illegal. We in fact have an abundance of laws what we need is for people to actually enforce them.
Bullying is not the least bit new nor is suicide related to it just because the media highlights more cases these days does not mean more are occuring. In other words there is nothing new happening the only thing that is new is the public realization of it.

Schools are not places of moral or philosophical instruction, schools are for educating. The rest of the responsibilty belongs to parents.

Top
#58217 - 08/15/11 09:03 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
Working hard to achieve a goal is the only way to change one's life. Whether the goal is to become a plumber, electrician, doctor, or teacher, a person should have a goal. The most important thing is to "do" things.

It takes hard work to change a life without debt. Many people go to school by attending their local state college and working. My grades were always higher when I worked and as I qualified myself it turned into a career. Why not work for the university? They may have tuition reimbursement plans for their employees.

The community colleges are a great and inexpensive place to start.

Lets not cry about lack of opportunity. There are many very successful people who worked their way through school and career, and made good lives for themselves.

Public and private schools have different views of civil rights. Almost all state schools place a high priority on civil rights because they are tightly regulated. Private schools are different. In "theory" private schools must adhere to legislation, but lets be real about it. I would never expect some religious schools to accept me as equal, and yes it may effect my grades as they may disagree with me in theory.

I want to place a twist on the issue of ethics. I agree with you that schools should not be places of moral and philophical "judgement". All viewpoints should be explored equally and individuals having different views treated with respect. Students should be encouraged to learn and explore, but part of learning is to explore different types of ethical viewpoints that students will have to deal with in the real world. This is very apparent in Satanic thought. Learning to make decisions in life is important to all belief systems, including Satanism.

It is not possible legally to hold a 10 year old responsible as an adult. Therefore someone who has influence over the child must be held repsonsible; the parent, school system, and teacher. They must be held responsible for teaching the child to be responsible for their behavior. That is part of the anti-bullying laws.

You are right that the laws themselves will not change behavior. First we must change the way people think to change behavior.




Edited by creativevalue (08/15/11 09:08 PM)

Top
#58257 - 08/16/11 06:43 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: creativevalue]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
 Quote:

Lets not cry about lack of opportunity. There are many very successful people who worked their way through school and career, and made good lives for themselves


Yes that's what I just said...

 Quote:
Public and private schools have different views of civil rights. Almost all state schools place a high priority on civil rights because they are tightly regulated. Private schools are different. In "theory" private schools must adhere to legislation, but lets be real about it. I would never expect some religious schools to accept me as equal, and yes it may effect my grades as they may disagree with me in theory.


I think you confusing civil rights with shall we say civil acceptance. Fact is they don't have to like you or what you think, they have the right to their own opinions just as you do. Those who are driven by belief, by ideology will never be swayed by anything. Really civil rights refer to the legal status of equal for all racial, religious, and gender groups and to be honest I have never heard of any religious institution not accepting someone for the race or gender. Now religion I suppose that a Catholic is probably not going to admit a muslim but why would a muslim Catholic in the first place? These schools don't hide what they're about so I do know if I'd have any sympathy for someone just seeking a confrontation.

Then on the topic of bullying my point is that there is already criminal standards for anything and everything that could be considered bullying so there need not be any laws crafted to fight it. My point is that if say a ten year old did something that would require the police to be involved(which again for a ten it would have to be pretty serious situation because most kids that age aren't even capable of doing something that bad)then that would be that it has nothing to do with applying adult standards to them. Last time I checked being a jackass has always been against the rules so specific anti bullying laws are not needed. Further these laws actually do nothing but put extra punishment on the kids so it's really the antibullying laws that put unfair standards on the ten year olds.

Top
#58271 - 08/17/11 12:14 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Meph9
Schools are not places of moral or philosophical instruction, schools are for educating. The rest of the responsibilty belongs to parents.

The problem, of course, is that many parents donít take responsibility for their kids. Moral is a tricky word, but schools certainly need to ensure a safe environment for learning. That requires the staff to be firm and consistent when dealing with bullies.

Youíre right that there are already laws on the books with regard to bullying. What the parents of a bullied child need to do is work their way up the chain of command, starting with the teacher and guidance counselor, to the principal and, if necessary, the school board. They need to keep detailed documentation, and if theyíre not satisfied with the results then they should get a lawyer.

My child has never been bullied, but if she was I would not hesitate to get involved. I donít know how anyone could call themselves a good parent and do otherwise.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#58312 - 08/18/11 03:52 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: William Wright]
Meph9 Offline
member


Registered: 04/02/11
Posts: 161
Will glad to hear you're not a deadbeat parent...

My point when I say schools aren't moral instruction centers is that schools are designed for one specific reason, to educate.
It is the responsibility of the parents and family to deal with those issues not the teachers yet it seems that all too often that is exactly what we are doing expecting the nation's educators to act like parents. This is one major factor that I would say brings our education system down. Though there are other considerations and factors that go into running a school that don't exactly involve educating like providing a safe environment I think we've let these considerations weaken the ability of teachers to well, teach.

On bullying I'm not exactly saying that there already are antibullying laws in place I saying that bullying can not encompass any activity that is not already against the law.

Bullying is:
harassment
assault
intimidation
theft

And as I'm sure you know 100% of things on that list are illegal

Take oil company regulations for example. We don't need new drilling regulations, there's laws and rules already in place the problem is the companies don't follow them. Not to mention the fact that the people who are supposed to make sure they are playing by the rules aren't checking either.

Top
#58363 - 08/20/11 04:55 AM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Meph9]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
I like your firm stance against bullying. Teachers must also be aware of the different ways that students from various social and behavorial cultures learn and of their sensitivities toward bullying.

You have mentioned several times that the schools can not become centers of moral instruction. What is your definition of morality? What is the difference between teaching morality and teaching ethics?

I agree with you that the schools can not become a judge of morality without biasing the education system and that schools should not teach a specific morality.

The schools do have to teach students to think critically. They also should teach students decision making skills. Does this then imply that they should teach students various ethical perspectives? If so, the teaching of ethical perspectives should be done from a neutral perspective, not to judge a specific form of ethics, but to teach students about different theories of ethics and how they may impact decision making.

Developing decision making skills is an important part of education. It is not the schools place to make moral judgements, but the schools should prepare the student to make decisions in different situations.







Edited by creativevalue (08/20/11 04:56 AM)

Top
#58376 - 08/20/11 03:25 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Autodidact]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
All I know is that, as a certified member of the Post-WW2 Baby Boom (born 1946), all the jobs, benefits, and money dry up the minute I'm eligible for them. Social Security started to be attacked the moment I hit 62, and now that I have a month to go before MediCare, the big guns are trained on it.

Look for soon-skyrocketing prices in in-home care, nursing homes, long-term-care insurance, tombstones, and cemetery space. Later on post-Boomers will have to pay more for seances.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#58381 - 08/20/11 04:34 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
All I know is that, as a certified member of the Post-WW2 Baby Boom (born 1946), all the jobs, benefits, and money dry up the minute I'm eligible for them. Social Security started to be attacked the moment I hit 62, and now that I have a month to go before MediCare, the big guns are trained on it.

Look for soon-skyrocketing prices in in-home care, nursing homes, long-term-care insurance, tombstones, and cemetery space. Later on post-Boomers will have to pay more for seances.



That's true. I just autofiled for my Social Security benefits, to begin when I hit 62 in October and, while it's there for me, there are people half our age who might just be saying, "What the hell was Social Security?" There may be SOMETHING in the future to count on, but I think it will be very different from what we see today.

As for sky-rocketing prices, that's already begun. We are the primary caregivers for my mother-in-law, a sweet old lady who has the misfortune to be afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease. We pay for her in-home care, because I made her a promise that we would keep her out of the long-term facility for as long as we could. It's not cheap, by any means, and the Medicare sponsored long-term care facilities are an expense over and above what an 84 year old's income (Social Security and a very small pension) can cover. Get ready, Gen Xers... you're in for a bumpy ride.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#58382 - 08/20/11 04:54 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Here it is not different. If things were as they were when I started working, I normally had 7 more years to go until pre-retirement. During those days it was normal to quit working between 52-56. Today I have another 22 years to go, at 67. But I'm quite sure that by the time I'm 67, I still got years to do.

In some decades we all probably work until we drop dead.

D.

Top
#58391 - 08/20/11 09:50 PM Re: Debt Ceiling [Re: Diavolo]
creativevalue Offline
banned
pledge


Registered: 04/14/10
Posts: 93
There has been a lot of talk about raising the retirement age. It is not realistic to expect to retire at 65/67 with more and more people living to be 100.

One item retirement planners are suggesting is that seniors develop a second career. Seniors possess much experience and it is healthy for them to keep busy.

Insurance companies, law suits, and corporate greed have driven health expenses up. It is a sorry state that people must write away their homes for nursing care and spend $10,000 plus for a cemetary plot.

I have read that some doctors are choosing not to accept health insurance and are instead taking a straight fee per visit that is affordable for all patients.



Edited by creativevalue (08/20/11 09:53 PM)

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.062 seconds of which 0.008 seconds were spent on 56 queries. Zlib compression disabled.