Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[gymgal]

I'll leave you to ponder if you can open your collective minds fiscons and soclibs alike. Imagine an event that wipes out every bridge, sea port, airport and rail line ever funded through gov money or give aways. Who will suffer the most....The people who need those venues to ship and receive goods to maintain a commercial enterprise. So lets consider who truely benifits the most from all the bridges, shipping venues, highways, surface streets, schools and universities. Not me in 2032, because I won't be able to afford the use of any of them anyway. That is I'm afraid the definition of the new middle class for 2032.

Actually, it will not be the rich who suffer in this instance. The will have enough money to make it work.... It will be the milddle and lower class, who will have to either pay exorbitant amount of money for dwindling supplies or go without....

And frankly, such a pessimistic view of America is very disturbing. One would hope citizens would have more faith in the people of this country to make sure it survives. Yes, the income gap is increasing - and during this recession, it is becoming more prevalent. But that always happens during recessions/depressions. It will stabliize again in a few years and the middle class will again grow, as it always has.

And let's talk about why businesses are not hiring and why we continue to find ourselves in a tailspin when we should have been out of this mess early last year....
1. obamacare: small businesses are scared to death over the cost this will have on their companies.
2. threat of tax increases: see #1
3. uncertainty of which way congress and the presidency will go (in 2008, 2010, and now in 2012)
4. fear that they will have to let people go in the near future due to poor revenues.
these are only a few that make me weary of expanding my business. I am sure there are many more, especially for moderately larger businesses.

 

[gymgal]

The entire conservative approach to economics seems to be built on two assumptions:

1) That there is a direct correlation between how hard you work and how much money you make

2) That when rich people and corporations make more money, they invest it and/or hire more people


Neither assumption is even remotely accurate.

Now, that last sentence is totally accurate! And any attempt to define a social/economic/political philosophy or policy into such simple terms just demonstrates the total lack of understanding of said policy/philosophy...

No conservative believes in point #1. However, most believe in the reverse, which is "If you're not willing to put in the effort, you won't be rewarded with the benefits (success)".

As for point 2, this is absolutely true. It may not be as fast or as much as other people think it should be, but it does happen. they ONLY way for companies to grow (or people's investments to grow) is to continue to build them. That means adding more employees or increasing investments in other companies.

 

[gymgal]

This mentality that anyone struggling just isn't working hard enough is baffling to me. If help is there, take it. People will judge you either way- "she's not working hard enough and if she really wanted to overcome these struggles she would take every opportunity available to do so". Well there is an opportunity (public assistance), yet if you take that to try and overcome your struggles you suddenly are labeled as "having a victim mentality"

As a college educated person who went to school as a full time student holding down a full time job and also nannying part time, carpooled when possible to save on all the driving, rented textbooks instead of buying, lived off campus with a roomate and survived eating ramen noodles (don't even get me started on why healthy food is so much more expensive!) I don't have much to show for that other than a massive student loan debt and a car that is falling apart, yet I can't afford to get a new one. Why? because college does not guarantee a job. I live paycheck to paycheck and In order to get a "high paying job", one that would still not put me at the "very not rich 250,000+" bracket, requires even more schooling, which will cost even more money.

Times have changed drastically, so while people say "that's how our grandparents did it- with hard work", unfortunately it's not the same era and sadly hard work does not guarantee success any longer.

Times really haven't changed all that drastically. In back in grandpa's day, they had to make wise decisions in order to make hard work pay off. And they had to take risks. And even then, it didn't always work out but there certainly was a great chance of success than doing the opposite...

And why does everyone think that going to college automatically entitles you (general "you", not specific to the reply post) to have doors open to you? If anything, it hinders your progress because of the enormous student loans that follow you. And unless you have placed yourself into a career that will help you quickly pay off your loans, and allow you to get into investing early on, you fall behind very quickly. Some of the richest people in the world dropped out of college to pursue their own businesses and grew them from scratch. I swear (and this is only my personal opinion) that this point is what infuriates people on the left more than anything else - that despite all the left's insistence on higher education (public funded) and working your way through the system (getting a job and climbing the ladder), these people made it on their own and dominate the nation's economy.

As for public assistance... there are lots of studies that indicate exactly what I said - it *creates* a victim mentality. I did not say that one who requests assistance portrays him/herself as a victim - only that by getting into the system, it changes the whole ballgame for your life. How? Well, you begin to think differently about the government, who is now supporting you. And about the "rich and businesses" who want to take "your" money (*their*money) back; You start to play the numbers game and realize that if you start to make too much money (sometimes as little as $50 a month), you lose some/all of your benefits - that's a real scary thought for someone who is getting their food, healthcare, rent, utilities paid for. Most times it is better for them financially to stay on assistance than to venture back into the real world - and there lies the trap..... Does this happen to all people on assistance? Certainly not. But it is happening to more and more every year. And the longer a person/family stays on assistance, the harder it is to go back into the earning world.

Think about this.... very rarely will you come across a family who, for generations are persistently poor, unless that family has remained on public assistance throughout the years. The families who turn themselves around from poor to middle class or even to wealthy are those that take the leap and get off assistance. Public assistance is not inherently bad. It just has to be used properly and the way it is set up now, it cannot be.

 

[BlairBob]

Given a disaster, the upper class will just be fodder to the survivalists. Sure, some would probably stock and arm themselves but would they be willing to group up. Possibly not and that would be their end.

 

[Chocoholic]

Now, that last sentence is totally accurate! And any attempt to define a social/economic/political philosophy or policy into such simple terms just demonstrates the total lack of understanding of said policy/philosophy...

No conservative believes in point #1. However, most believe in the reverse, which is "If you're not willing to put in the effort, you won't be rewarded with the benefits (success)".

As for point 2, this is absolutely true. It may not be as fast or as much as other people think it should be, but it does happen. they ONLY way for companies to grow (or people's investments to grow) is to continue to build them. That means adding more employees or increasing investments in other companies.

Hmm. That's not how Romney's biz made its money. It bought out companies' balance sheets, sacked the employees, and pocketed the cash. They got more money, people lost jobs. Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of ways for companies to grow without adding benefit to the country because we have a lot of very wealthy people who make money churning money. They are not creating goods or services, they are not adding anything to society, they are making money betting on other people's investments.

 

[gymgal]

Hmm. That's not how Romney's biz made its money. It bought out companies' balance sheets, sacked the employees, and pocketed the cash. They got more money, people lost jobs. Unfortunately, there's a whole lot of ways for companies to grow without adding benefit to the country because we have a lot of very wealthy people who make money churning money. They are not creating goods or services, they are not adding anything to society, they are making money betting on other people's investments.

Well, before I respond specifically to the Romney comment, I need to know exactly what you're talking about... What "biz?" , what companies did he buy out? See, because there is a lot of false statements floating out there that most people just take as fact....

However, in general - It's called consolidation. When one company buys another, it almost always includes layoffs due to streamlining. Yes, this is a painful reality of taking over a struggling company, but the alternate would be a total failure of the company, in which case all employees lose their jobs. Listen, we live in a free market society here in the US. It's not always pretty and it doesn't always work as perfectly as we want it to but it DOES WORK. How else do you think this nation has become as great as it has? The interference of the government? think again.

The more the government interferes with with the private sector and with individual states, the less efficient our nation becomes. Example? Department of Education. States send their tax revenues to Washington, so that the Fed can redistribute it - with strings attached of course, such as "NCLB" and nutrition standards. What comes back to the states is considerably less than what was sent out due to the infrastructure of DOE in Washington and the redistribution of "wealth" to poor states. And lets not forget the housing and auto industry debacles. And believe me, I am NOT simply blaming the Dems. The Repubs. have been right there with them....

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

However, in general - It's called consolidation. When one company buys another, it almost always includes layoffs due to streamlining. Yes, this is a painful reality of taking over a struggling company, but the alternate would be a total failure of the company, in which case all employees lose their jobs. Listen, we live in a free market society here in the US.

This is a fancy way of saying "yes, I admit that more money for corporations does not translate into more jobs."

It's not always pretty and it doesn't always work as perfectly as we want it to but it DOES WORK. How else do you think this nation has become as great as it has? The interference of the government? think again.

First of all, the unquestioned assumption of American exceptionalism is a huge pet-peeve of mine.

The US is not the only advanced western democracy in the world. And in fact, there are increasingly few measures by which we are anything close to the "best." I know it's standard practice for right-wing pundits to flip out any time somebody implies that the US is not the greatest-country-ever-in-existence-chosen-by-god-to-be-perfect-in-every-way-and-the-founding-fathers-all-peed-perfume-and-pooped-rainbows, but we have to recognize this for what it is -- pointless nationalistic arrogance.

Is it a great country? Yes, of course. But right now, there are plenty of other countries with lower crime rates, healthier populations, better education, less poverty, etc etc etc. And many of them are far more politically liberal than we are.

The more the government interferes with with the private sector and with individual states, the less efficient our nation becomes.

Oh really?

 

[gymgal]

This is a fancy way of saying "yes, I admit that more money for corporations does not translate into more jobs."

First of all, the unquestioned assumption of American exceptionalism is a huge pet-peeve of mine.

The US is not the only advanced western democracy in the world. And in fact, there are increasingly few measures by which we are anything close to the "best." I know it's standard practice for right-wing pundits to flip out any time somebody implies that the US is not the greatest-country-ever-in-existence-chosen-by-god-to-be-perfect-in-every-way-and-the-founding-fathers-all-peed-perfume-and-pooped-rainbows, but we have to recognize this for what it is -- pointless nationalistic arrogance.

Is it a great country? Yes, of course. But right now, there are plenty of other countries with lower crime rates, healthier populations, better education, less poverty, etc etc etc. And many of them are far more politically liberal than we are.

Oh really?

No, I don't admit that at all... And what do you mean by "more money for corporations?" you make it sound like the government is giving the corporations more money. Aside from the debacle of "saving" the auto companies and the banks the last few years, the government does not "give" money to any corporations. They just TAKE LESS from them in taxes. But I know you all know that....Sometimes people just reminders.... And in the words of this current administration - jobs saved is equivalent to jobs gained. If a company buys out another company, it is because the latter is in serious trouble. Jobs saved.... and when the company is doing better, there will be an increase in hiring. What else would you expect? have a corporation buy a troubled company and continue to lose money? that not good business sense. That's not good in any sense....

LOL I have to give you the second point about republican and devine intervention when forming this country.... Yes, I do think we are the greatest nation in the world. But it's because I am an American. I grew up in a family where patriotism was inbred in us. I think a good majority of the people around the world feel the same way about their country. but I also feel that the US is a very special nation - the first successful one of its kind. For 200 years, we have immigrants from all over the world looking for a new life in our country. No other country can say the same. And even with our so-called problems, we continue to have a huge influx of immigration.

As for other countries out pacing us in certain areas
education: this is a continual problem and won't be fixed until there is more competition for traditional public schools - charters, magnets, affordable privates; also remember that we are one of the leading countries for integration of special needs in our classrooms. While this is a great concept for all involved, it does slow down learning for the general population. And at the other end of the spectrum, we don't do a very good job with our advanced/gifted population.

lower crime rates: this is troublesome and is getting worse. I believe a lot of this is just the nature of such a large country (less personal) and the increasing disrespect for authority and elders... It's a cultural issue more than a national issue.

less poverty: the countries with less poverty share their wealth. You might agree with this but I don't, and neither did our founding fathers. the US was not built on equal lives. It was built on equal opportunity to succeed.

healthier populations: There is so much that goes into this, with the biggest being how we lead our lives - our habits. This country has the greatest health care options available throughout the entire world. IF our population is less healthy (and I'm not convinced on this), it does not have to do with our health care system. Now, I do agree that states should have systems set up to ensure that everyone is able to buy affordable health insurance. However, I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional right to impose this on the nation. And I also disagree that states have the right to force it on companies and individuals.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

but I also feel that the US is a very special nation - the first successful one of its kind.

What do you mean by "of it's kind?" Certainly not the first successful democracy/republic/representative democracy/whatever -- Greece and Rome both beat us to that by several thousand years.

For 200 years, we have immigrants from all over the world looking for a new life in our country. No other country can say the same. And even with our so-called problems, we continue to have a huge influx of immigration.

Dear diary: I learned something new today. Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that has immigrants.

education: this is a continual problem and won't be fixed until there is more competition for traditional public schools - charters, magnets, affordable privates;

Or until we start giving them the funding they need.

also remember that we are one of the leading countries for integration of special needs in our classrooms. While this is a great concept for all involved, it does slow down learning for the general population. And at the other end of the spectrum, we don't do a very good job with our advanced/gifted population.

I won't argue that this needs to be reworked.

lower crime rates: this is troublesome and is getting worse. I believe a lot of this is just the nature of such a large country (less personal) and the increasing disrespect for authority and elders... It's a cultural issue more than a national issue.

So you deify the founding fathers (whose entire claim to fame is rebelling against authority) and, in the same post, say we need to have more respect for authority? Please tell me you at least see the irony here.

less poverty: the countries with less poverty share their wealth. You might agree with this but I don't, and neither did our founding fathers. the US was not built on equal lives. It was built on equal opportunity to succeed.

Yeah, it must suck to live in one of those countries that doesn't just let people starve.

I don't think I will ever understand the mindset that leads people to be morally offended at the idea of helping the poor.

healthier populations: There is so much that goes into this, with the biggest being how we lead our lives - our habits. This country has the greatest health care options available throughout the entire world.

Debatable

IF our population is less healthy (and I'm not convinced on this), it does not have to do with our health care system. Now, I do agree that states should have systems set up to ensure that everyone is able to buy affordable health insurance. However, I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional right to impose this on the nation. And I also disagree that states have the right to force it on companies and individuals.

The only people effectively punished by an individual mandate are the people who would have otherwise gamed the system -- at the expense of everybody else.

 

[iwannacoach]

.

As for other countries out pacing us in certain areas
education: this is a continual problem and won't be fixed until there is more competition for traditional public schools - charters, magnets, affordable privates; also remember that we are one of the leading countries for integration of special needs in our classrooms. While this is a great concept for all involved, it does slow down learning for the general population. And at the other end of the spectrum, we don't do a very good job with our advanced/gifted population.


less poverty: the countries with less poverty share their wealth. You might agree with this but I don't, and neither did our founding fathers. the US was not built on equal lives. It was built on equal opportunity to succeed.

healthier populations: . Now, I do agree that states should have systems set up to ensure that everyone is able to buy affordable health insurance. However, I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional right to impose this on the nation. And I also disagree that states have the right to force it on companies and individuals.

When you spoke of the mission and results of the public education system listing challenges they face and suggest competition from charters, magnets, and affordable privates, you seem to skim over the fact that many charters and magnet schools have defined their missions in a fashion that allows them to limit or refuse services to "high commitment" students, and private schools can simply say those services are not what they offer to their customers.

If you were to champion the notion that every school be required to offer services to "high commitment" students at the same price their other students pay, plus any gov money dedicated to ADA, Title 1....... Your dream of throwing them against the wall to see which sticks would be fair.

If you live in an urban area you probably hear what a sad state the public schools are in, and assume that it's gov waste, gov control, and public employee apathy that has created the mess. You should consider a few realities before you drive the school bus over a cliff.....

Many urban public schools in moderate to low income areas are tasked with the burden of cleaning up societies little problems while they educate their students. Kids in these schools show up each day hungry and barely clothed due to negligent parents who would rather not be bothered with parental responsibility. These parents send their sick, lice infested kids to school each day because they can't do some of the sick things they want to do with their kids around. They don't answer their phones when the school calls until a street smart principle takes up the task of KNOCKING ON THEIR DOOR.

Solve these problems before bringing up competition, and stop blaming the "public sector" when the overwhelming responsibility lies at the feet of a "private sector" that simple kicks that responsibility to the side to allow them faster acess to the bully pulpits from which they cast doubts upon public schools.

And would someone please tell whoever needs to be told, that the old saw about being happy to fund public education when it proves itself capable of it's mission is an insult in the face of the facts. Your society has changed, and now you're complaining about taxes being collected to solve problems you can't solve, that are being forced onto public schools by default.

* * * * * * * *

And just a few words about our founding fathers and equal opportunity. Not having spoken to them lately, I'm left to my imagination to understand their intentions...as are you. I know you'd like to believe this is the land of opportunity, and I agree with that notion to a limit. I have a hard time going the extra step of embracing your position completely because of your statement that the US was not built on equal lives.......

You're so right!!! It was built on the un-equal defensless backs of slaves, who were expoited by bold, strong, proud, heroic people with a vision of a new beginning, some whom we honor with National Holidays and face time on currency. It's no wonder the wealthy want to accumulte more, as they're only trying to put together a big collection of early americana action heros. I'm genuinely sorry, but you've just idolized a beginning that included a well to do gang of self centered, racial supremists, that tourtured, killed, and raped their way to positions of greater wealth and power.

Looks like you just can't trust some wealthy people to keep things in perspective, while others you can. Which is about the same you can say for those who earn their wages or grow profitable businesses, and pay taxes.

I know I'm in the habit of offering a thought to consider, well here it is.......You say that the wealthy would make do if our infrastructure were to vanish into thin air, and that the little people would suffer the most. Tell me who amongst the rich would pony up the money to build a seaport from which they could ship their goods. I would think just a modest deepwater facility seviced by a road and maybe a bridge ought to solve the problem, but rats, no electricity available from government initialized generation facilities. I gotta belive that'll leave a dent of biblical proportions in somebody's wallet.

I guess the industrious super rich will just have to cough up a few more bucks to get their prodution facility back to the business of making goods to sell overseas. They won't be able to sell them here because there are no roads to bring customers to their stores which can't be supplied because the roads are all gone. And forget about them combining their resources to solve their problems......free market competition would get in the way as they falter under the burden of their wealth and greed.......

You may think this an improbable scenario, and I completely agree that it may not play out that way. I think their most likely resolve would be to pull up stakes and take their money elsewhere to best maximize their return, probably absconding with all of our National Treasures, Heroes, and holidays on their way out the door........

You just may be on to something with your complaint about the constitutionality of forced insurance. I suggest you find the best constitutional scholars this nation has to offer, as the Supreme Court is bound to have gotten it wrong due to their own individual bias and liberal mantra.......Whoops, almost forgot about that pesky, conservative chief justice. Oh well, you can't win them all!!!

 

[Chocoholic]

Well, before I respond specifically to the Romney comment, I need to know exactly what you're talking about... What "biz?" , what companies did he buy out? See, because there is a lot of false statements floating out there that most people just take as fact....

However, in general - It's called consolidation. When one company buys another, it almost always includes layoffs due to streamlining. Yes, this is a painful reality of taking over a struggling company, but the alternate would be a total failure of the company, in which case all employees lose their jobs. Listen, we live in a free market society here in the US. It's not always pretty and it doesn't always work as perfectly as we want it to but it DOES WORK. How else do you think this nation has become as great as it has? The interference of the government? think again.

..

The biz I'm referring to is Bain Capital. And they don't really make their money consolidating underperforming businesses. Private equity firms like Bain earn most of their money through financial manipulation. A big share of their returns comes from “tax arbitrage”—figuring out how to exploit loopholes to pay less to the government. Because interest is a deductible business expense, debt financing means they often pay little or no corporate tax. Private equity’s reliance on leverage can also magnify short-term earnings without leaving the companies they manage more valuable overall. Private equity firms often also pay large “special dividends” out of borrowed money. It's all legal, but it's not good for the economy.

Romney’s Bain career is a story about rising inequality and it's a story that explains why wealth in our economy is becomingly so increasingly stratified. It's not a function of the recession and it won't just get better on its own. It’s telling that George Romney, Mitt’s father, made around $200,000 through most of the years he ran American Motors Corporation. Doing work that clearly created jobs, he paid an effective tax rate that averaged 37 percent. His son made vastly more running a corporate chop shop in an industry that doesn't really create jobs at all. In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.7 million in investment income—around 14 times as much as his father in inflation-adjusted terms. This difference represents the change from corporate execs who lived in the same world as the people who worked for them, in an America with real social mobility, to a financial upperclass who are empowered by the laws they pay to promote and are becoming wealthier without any increase in jobs or tax revenues for the government. The elder Romney wasn’t embarrassed to explain what he’d done as a businessman or to release his tax returns.How come Mitt won't do the same?

Conservatives are so worried about the boogieman of socialism and the fear of someone else getting a handout that they often ignore plain economic truths. As a country, we are incentivizing money manipulation -- not job growth or manufacturing -- and it's likely you would be better off if some reasonable restraints were imposed.

 

[gymgal]

I apologize for all the replies but the website was having trouble accepting my longer posts. And you all have brought up such great debating points...

What do you mean by "of it's kind?" Certainly not the first successful democracy/republic/representative democracy/whatever -- Greece and Rome both beat us to that by several thousand years.

yes, I meant to edit this before submitting it - I meant to add "successful modern one". But I will add that Greece and Rome were not organized the way the US is. We are nation of individual (marginally sovereign) states, united for common protection against foreign attacks and for common international commerce. People forget how this nation was founded. The federal government was never meant to have as much power as it does today.

Dear diary: I learned something new today. Apparently, the US is the only country in the world that has immigrants.

LOL... silly, not the only country but name me a country that comes even remotely close in percentage and numbers.... modern past or present.... can't? thought so..

Or until we start giving them the funding they need.

this is in regards to public education.... Oh please - we don't give public schools enough money??? give me a break. Have you seen how much money per student goes to each school district?! It is outrageous! Charter schools get only a portion of this and on average fair much better than their traditional public school counterparts. Iwannacoach mentioned that charters can exclude kids. Not in my state they can't. They are public institutions and have to have a non-discriminatory policy, in terms of race, social-economic background, and educational status.

And let me add that if the DOE didn't exist, there would be a lot more money available to the schools - see my last post about it.

 

[gymgal]

So you deify the founding fathers (whose entire claim to fame is rebelling against authority) and, in the same post, say we need to have more respect for authority? Please tell me you at least see the irony here.

LOL seriously? you're going to compare the two? I was talking about societal crime - you know, stealing, assault, drug use, murder of fellow civilians, etc. - and respect for elders as in your teachers, parents, relatives, bosses. You're really going to attempt to compare that to the initial stages of the American Revolution, where the colonists were fighting for fair representation in the British government? Be my guest, I want to hear more.... ( I really wanted the popcorn smiley but couldn't find it!)

 

[gymgal]

When you spoke of the mission and results of the public education system listing challenges they face and suggest competition from charters, magnets, and affordable privates, you seem to skim over the fact that many charters and magnet schools have defined their missions in a fashion that allows them to limit or refuse services to "high commitment" students

not in my state. Charters cannot discriminate based on race, economic ability, or school achievement.

And I totally agree with you that the problem isn't the teachers (and it's not the amount of money going to the schools either). Especially in the urban schools but slowly creeping into the suburbans as well is the lack of family involvement and the lack importance placed on education iby the community. And until this is addressed, no amount of money thrown at underachieving schools is going to help. But I will add that there is considerable amount waste in the education system. And if the schools would get back to teaching the very basics and making the families take care of the rest, our children would be much better prepared for the world.

As for the chief justice, no one except the dems ever portrayed him as a conservative. In fact most conservatives didn't want him. Republicans were fine with him but conservatives were not. And while the ruling allows Obama to go forward with the plan, it isn't exactly a win for him. As the justice stated, this is not a ruling of whether the federal government can force healthcare on the Amercian public. It is a ruling of whether the federal government can tax the American public. And since we were stupid enough to elect the officials who put Obamacare in place, we must live with the consequences. He, in no means advocated the health care plan. And by making it a tax issue, he essentially evaded the issue of constitutionality, which is why Conservatives are so upset. He took a case and ruled on something other than what was presented. This now will be considered the largest single tax increase in American history and make no mistake about it - it will negatively affect the vast majority of middle and even some low income earners.

 

[gymgal]

Our nation was not built on the backs of slaves. Slavery primarily (and later, exclusively) only existed in a few southern states. Is it a horrible part of our history - of course, but no worse than any other nation. Same with sweat shop labor. I'm not saying it's ok. And the founding fathers did not view it as OK either. They just didn't know how to deal with it... If you read their books (very much like getting in their heads, if you ask me), you will see that they were very torn about slavery even before the nation was formed. And that includes slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. They could have made courageous decisions and outlawed it at the start. I wish they had but they didn't. They could have released their slaves, but they didn't (well, Washington did).

 

[iwannacoach]

this is in regards to public education.... Oh please - we don't give public schools enough money??? give me a break. Have you seen how much money per student goes to each school district?! It is outrageous! Charter schools get only a portion of this and on average fair much better than their traditional public school counterparts. Iwannacoach mentioned that charters can exclude kids. Not in my state they can't. They are public institutions and have to have a non-discriminatory policy, in terms of race, social-economic background, and educational status.

And let me add that if the DOE didn't exist, there would be a lot more money available to the schools - see my last post about it.

Nice skim over on the schools again.......Where my children attend public schools, laws lobbied for by charter advocates allow charters to have a defined mission that acts to discourage entry for those whom the school was not crafted to serve. I get that charters can excell by gathering students of a common interest in one place, and I really support that. I worry, that as their stated mission is pursued, kids with learning disabilities and unique physical challenges will excluded themselves when they realize the charter's mission and their inclinations are not a good fit........ It ends up being exclusionary, and I think charters consider ADA costs when organizing, and try to include barriers to the extent the law allows.


Many charters organize with authoritarian powers not availed to public schools. They can and do require more parent volunteerism as well as financial support from the parents. Sure the cash parents pony offset reasonable expenses for classroom supplies and guest educators for an immersion week. Public schools aren't allowed to require parent participation nor financial support from their student population, forcing many teachers to fund reasonable classroom supplies with money from their own paychecks to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.

You state that charters recieve only a portion of the per child money the state provides. Our state requires the sponsoring district to pass through no less than 80% to the charter. What the charters don't recieve goes to provide admin support for logistics and services such as testing and to make available any ADA and Title 1 support for those charters with the few determined students that don't fit their mission statement but end up attending anyway.


Since you seem to think the public schools are awash in taxpayer money, and private industry so capable of efficient operation, you may be just the person I've been hoping would explain the efficiency of the skyboxes we see corporations purchasing at sports arenas. While your at it you can help me figure out the efficiency of CEO's recieving annual compensation in the 5 million range, or about 100 times a respectable middle class wage earner. What is efficient about the compensation given CEO's is the use of stock options that allow the bulk of their compensation to come in the form of capitol gains, all taxed at a lower rate.....


Sorry to hear about that darned department of energy messing up the public school system. I wanted to know more about it so I went to your last post and found no mention of the DOE. If you don't mind I'd like to declare the DOE claim to be a non-starter for your lack of saying anything about the DOE in what I beleive is your last post, the one from yesterday at from yesterday. So if you do want to make the claim that a public energy agency is robbing the country's schools blind, please do so clearly and deliberately, but do try to avoid offerring private america as the solution to your DOE woes. We've been working on setting that juggernaut loose by means of "de-regulation" since the Reagan era, and the most notable results to date have been the Exxon Valdez, Enron, and the Deepwater Horizon well head debacle, all sponsored for by private industry, all of which have had a negative impact on consmers, wage earners and the environment......

Sorry, but I just can't be brought to a point of emotionally re-investing in corporate america. I have limited capitol of heart and soul that I would rather invest in the people around me.

 

[gymgal]

The biz I'm referring to is Bain Capital. And they don't really make their money consolidating underperforming businesses. Private equity firms like Bain earn most of their money through financial manipulation. A big share of their returns comes from “tax arbitrage”—figuring out how to exploit loopholes to pay less to the government. Because interest is a deductible business expense, debt financing means they often pay little or no corporate tax. ...... It's all legal, but it's not good for the economy.

don't we all do this with our taxes? I'm not seeing why this is a problem. You admit it's legal. These loopholes have been around for decades. And yet, they are still there. Why? because there's no way of getting rid of them with the current system and attempting to tax corporations more is not the answer. They will just pass it on to the consumer in higher prices and fees.. But beyond that, why exactly is this specifically not good for the economy? i admit, i am not a business person but I do not understand how paying less in taxes has anything to do with the economy. It affects the government's bottom line but that is not the economy, unless you live in a nation in which the government controls the economy - something conservatives/libertarians are desperately trying to avoid...

Romney’s Bain career is a story about rising inequality and it's a story that explains why wealth in our economy is becomingly so increasingly stratified. It's not a function of the recession and it won't just get better on its own.

not really. The dealings you are describing are such a small percentage of our economy. And besides, Why is it that people automatically focus on the amount of money that someone has made rather than looking at how he got there. I am not talking Romney specifically because he was already well off before he headed Bane Capital but in general, the vast amount people who make a lot of money do so by putting up a lot of risk to their name (as in thousands/millions of dollars). If they are brave/stupid enough to do it, then they should reap the benefit of it. And they should be held responsible for their actions when they failure (a major pet peeve of this current housing crisis).

In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.7 million in investment income—....... The elder Romney wasn’t embarrassed to explain what he’d done as a businessman or to release his tax returns.How come Mitt won't do the same?

Conservatives are so worried about the boogieman of socialism and the fear of someone else getting a handout that they often ignore plain economic truths. As a country, we are incentivizing money manipulation -- not job growth or manufacturing -- and it's likely you would be better off if some reasonable restraints were imposed.

First, Romney has stated several times that he will release his tax documents when the time comes that he needs to - once he is officially the Republican nominee. And frankly I don't blame him, especially when the media and the current president are waging a class warfare campaign. Why would he purposely choose to release records in this environment. That's political suicide - not because he is doing something illegal but because any negative publicity (and rest assured, the media will be all over it) will mean certain death for his presidential run, which is exactly why the dems wanted the records released earlier.

LOL... love the boogieman analogy and I have to admit, sometimes even I get that thought when listening to some on the conservative side. I can only answer for myself. If I want to live in a more socialistic society, I will emigrate north to Canada or east to Great Britian. I like and believe in our system. It is far from perfect and it over the years it has become a lot more "socialist" than I would like but I have hope that it will return closer to the middle again in the future. I simply do not believe in a "share the wealth" mentality. Not because I'm greedy (I am not) but because I know it doesn't work. When you don't have any stake in the claim (or no perceived stake), you don't put out your best effort.

And money manipulation occurs on both ends of the spectrum and I would suggest that what happens at the lower end is far worse for the economy than what happens at the top. People manipulating their governmental funds with their income, in attempts to still receive funding but work as well. This creates a population that remains on public assistance instead of slowly climbing out and up. While the *tax burden* from this may not be as much (money spent on assistance), the potential for increased earnings and taxes is lost. And the potential for these families saving and sizable amount of money for college and retirement is very low, creating a lifetime of governmental assistance. I work with people everyday in these predicaments. It's not easy. Many of these families really struggle with the fact of what they are doing (not illegal, but they are using the system in ways it was not intended). But their fear of failure holds them back...

 

[iwannacoach]

Our nation was not built on the backs of slaves. Slavery primarily (and later, exclusively) only existed in a few southern states. Is it a horrible part of our history - of course, but no worse than any other nation. Same with sweat shop labor. I'm not saying it's ok. And the founding fathers did not view it as OK either. They just didn't know how to deal with it... If you read their books (very much like getting in their heads, if you ask me), you will see that they were very torn about slavery even before the nation was formed. And that includes slave owners like Jefferson and Washington. They could have made courageous decisions and outlawed it at the start. I wish they had but they didn't. They could have released their slaves, but they didn't (well, Washington did).

I'll agree to 1670-ish as the true begiinings of america's colonial period, but it's ok with me if you'd like to offer 1725 as an alternate to save our founding fathers a few decades of tarnish. The North abolished slavery after the american revoulution circa 1776, a veritable blink of the eye according to you, while the south continued on for another 90 years. So my timeline has the slavery era lasting about 190 years....are you kidding me.....just a wee bit of slavery. You really don't seem to see the forest for the trees.....Your torn leaders, as you call them, capitulated to special interests for at least 50 years of full throttle slavery where the laws of our colonial land allowed one human to do ANYTHING they cared, to another class of defensless humans.

This is the way it was back then, and while you'll try to minimize it with torn emotions, there is no way it was minimized for any individual tied to a whipping post. Your argument is general and vague to allow exuses to our founders, and corporate america of colonial times. How can I help but wonder to what lengths your aguments will go to validate your views of modern corporate america. I find many frightening similarities between colonial days and modern times. We still have brave, strong, and visionary people, growing stronger and more privileged while complaining about a lazy, less capable class of people who's lives are largely controlled by events produced and manipulated by corporate america.

Call justice Roberts what you will. A conservative appointed him, he's ruled in harmony with the right on nearly every issue brought to his court, so I'll call him a conservative. Kinda a funny little semantics game, isn't it....

Don't get me wrong....I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the bulk of US citizens. I think we are a great nation, but need leaders who will pave their own roads, build their own bridges, and create their wealth by creating value instead of playing "operator" with everyone elses money. Seems like what starts to go around always comes back a little changed each time the game is played with laws lobbied for by who.....big business. Go play their game sometime under rules that they craft to their advantage....it doesn't feel fair on a play ground, nor in real life.

Open your eye's to Enron, who had a wholly owned susidiary that sold power to another subsidiary to create an energy crisis, which allowed them to fictiously send energy over transmission lines that were theoretically over capacity....all so they could make money, again on the backs of the little people, and you say taxes are un-fair, that the wealthy need to be protected and nurtured so they can create jobs. You must consider job creation as the act of hiring lobbiests, lawyers, and ad agencies to help steer the ship of commerce in the "right" direction.

 

[gymgal]

Private equity firms like Bain earn most of their money through financial manipulation. A big share of their returns comes from “tax arbitrage”—figuring out how to exploit loopholes to pay less to the government. Because interest is a deductible business expense, debt financing means they often pay little or no corporate tax. Private equity’s reliance on leverage can also magnify short-term earnings without leaving the companies they manage more valuable overall. Private equity firms often also pay large “special dividends” out of borrowed money. It's all legal, but it's not good for the economy.

Romney’s Bain career is a story about rising inequality and it's a story that explains why wealth in our economy is becomingly so increasingly stratified. It's not a function of the recession and it won't just get better on its own. It’s telling that George Romney, Mitt’s father, made around $200,000 through most of the years he ran American Motors Corporation. Doing work that clearly created jobs, he paid an effective tax rate that averaged 37 percent. His son made vastly more running a corporate chop shop in an industry that doesn't really create jobs at all. In 2010, Mitt Romney paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.7 million in investment income—around 14 times as much as his father in inflation-adjusted terms. This difference represents the change from corporate execs who lived in the same world as the people who worked for them, in an America with real social mobility, to a financial upperclass who are empowered by the laws they pay to promote and are becoming wealthier without any increase in jobs or tax revenues for the government. The elder Romney wasn’t embarrassed to explain what he’d done as a businessman or to release his tax returns.How come Mitt won't do the same?

Chocoholic: SO not cool.... Slate.com?

 

[gymgal]

Nice skim over on the schools again.......Where my children attend public schools, laws lobbied for by charter advocates allow charters to have a defined mission that acts to discourage entry for those whom the school was not crafted to serve. I get that charters can excell by gathering students of a common interest in one place, and I really support that. I worry, that as their stated mission is pursued, kids with learning disabilities and unique physical challenges will excluded themselves when they realize the charter's mission and their inclinations are not a good fit........ It ends up being exclusionary, and I think charters consider ADA costs when organizing, and try to include barriers to the extent the law allows.

Many charters organize with authoritarian powers not availed to public schools. They can and do require more parent volunteerism as well as financial support from the parents. Sure the cash parents pony offset reasonable expenses for classroom supplies and guest educators for an immersion week. Public schools aren't allowed to require parent participation nor financial support from their student population, forcing many teachers to fund reasonable classroom supplies with money from their own paychecks to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.

And parent participation is one of the big reasons why the charters work. And if there were more available, more children would benefit from them. And yes, I totally agree that there has to be plans in place for all children. Our charters are public schools so they have to follow the same policies as our public schools. They can encourage parent participation and sharing of costs, but they can't force it (if you're are publicly funded, it's the same for you too, though the charters may be vague on that to theri parents). And our public school all but force our parents for these anyway. Each year, families gets a long list of class supplies bother for the children and for the teacher. This often adds up to more than $100 for each child and more is asked throughout the year. Most parents comply and buy the supplies. In lower income areas, the teachers have come together to seek donations from businesses and "sister" schools (who have higher income families) to assist on the supplies.

Since you seem to think the public schools are awash in taxpayer money, and private industry so capable of efficient operation, you may be just the person I've been hoping would explain the efficiency of the skyboxes we see corporations purchasing at sports arenas. While your at it you can help me figure out the efficiency of CEO's recieving annual compensation in the 5 million range, or about 100 times a respectable middle class wage earner. What is efficient about the compensation given CEO's is the use of stock options that allow the bulk of their compensation to come in the form of capitol gains, all taxed at a lower rate.....

. Frankly, I can't explain this.. To me, it's a huge waste in money. But the difference is that it is a PRIVATE corporation, answerable to its investors. If I'm not an investor, it's not my business. Tax revenue used to fund public endeavors (like education), on the other hand, is my business. And I have a right to know how and where it is being spent and when it is being wasted, I have the right to question it. If I was an investor in a private corporation, I would feel the same. And if I didn't like what I was seeing, I would pull my money. Unfortunately, I cannot do that with my taxes. I can only attempt to put the politicians in place who share my views.

Sorry to hear about that darned department of energy messing up the public school system. I wanted to know more about it so I went to your last post and found no mention of the DOE. If you don't mind I'd like to declare the DOE claim to be a non-starter for your lack of saying anything about the DOE in what I beleive is your last post, the one from yesterday at from yesterday. So if you do want to make the claim that a public energy agency is robbing the country's schools blind, please do so clearly and deliberately, but do try to avoid offerring private america as the solution to your DOE woes. We've been working on setting that juggernaut loose by means of "de-regulation" since the Reagan era, and the most notable results to date have been the Exxon Valdez, Enron, and the Deepwater Horizon well head debacle, all sponsored for by private industry, all of which have had a negative impact on consmers, wage earners and the environment.......

You made me smile with this one. The DOE is the Dept. of Education. Since we were talking about education, I felt it was quite obvious. Apparently, I was wrong. And I never said the DOE (as in education LOL) was robbing America blind. I only noted that they are extremely inefficient, which they are. It's a no-brainer. When states have to send their revenues to Washington to have them redistributed (through employees at the national level), inefficiency is a certain. And obviously, wealthier states pay in more than they get back. And when you place tags on this money, like no-child-left-behind (NCLB) and nutrition standards in order to get your own state's money back, that's just ridiculous...