patrick.net

CBOEtrader says

The government should focus its efforts on trade schools for the majority, instead of trying to send every American student to a cookie-cutter crap public university. University education should be used to educate the scholarly minority.

I don't see that it's governments choice. The system has built up around an elementary and secondary system that doesn't do well enough, for spoiled american kids who feel entitled, and who often continue adolescence well into their 20s (at least). My point being that solutions to this can't come from government.

Often times, a couple years in a junior college or in one of the public universities you refer to, can bring an underachieving kid up to the level where they deserve the option of continuing toward a college degree or if they so choose they can work toward a trade of some kind.

We probably could do better in with training for trades, but it's not that bad. And some trade type jobs such as becoming a nurse, or other type of health technician, or law enforcement work, and others, are all areas in which we do fairly well.

It's a market, and it works. Our market for job training which includes various forms of higher education has adapted to the needs of american kids, including the fact that american kids are spoiled and often have a prolonged youth.

The "solution" that I would like to see is if mating and even dating decisions were more heavily skewed toward a person's potential to provide. This is a cultural thing, and my hope is that eventually it will be that way in American culture. That is, if the prevailing perception of sexiest attribute for a potential mate was having a high aptitude, and a high potential future income, and a desire to raise like minded children, then the entire education problem would be gone within a few generations.

What makes you think I can't have all that stuff?

I can pay for all that if I wanted to, however I choose to live frugally, pay down my student debts, save for my future retirement.

Of course, I am going to be punished for my choices of living responsibly by having my taxes increased because when I am attending, I "make too much money!!!!!!" despite my 20+ years of sacrifice and frugality...

It's painfully obvious our nation supports sloth and spending, and punishes sacrifice, work, and saving - just look at our federal income tax!

I personally think we society SHOULD help the poor some. I know I probably would have eaten much better as a kid!

But it shouldn't be through food stamps. WAY too much fraud for that. I remember easily being able to buy food stamps in my neighborhood in a 7:10 ratio through middle-men - who knows what the food stamp recepients were selling it for? (for cigarettes, alcohol, drugs I'm sure)

They should open food banks where people can come in for some food in exchange for some labor - even if it's something as small as cleaning up the parks, streets, etc.

This may be somewhat offtopic and more of a rant than anything:
This probably sounds rather "cruel" but I personally have a huge hatred for single moms who KEEP pumping out kids. I think if welfare single-moms are getting free healthcare, welfare they should be:
1) encouraged, educated, and given free contraceptive (which we do but they refuse anyway)
2) be forced to take Depo shots every 3 months for birth control. (which we offer free but they refuse anyway)
I know it's a touchy subject, but a mom with 5 kids with 4 different dads (I've seen so many of these) really shouldn't be having MORE kids. They're not doing themselves a favor. They're not doing their current kids a favor by splitting the attention. They're certainly not doing the tax payer any favors.
If they don't want to stop having kids, then their free support is cut off. That's their choice to make.

CaffeineAddict says

But it shouldn’t be through food stamps. WAY too much fraud for that. I remember easily being able to buy food stamps in my neighborhood in a 7:10 ratio through middle-men - who knows what the food stamp recepients were selling it for? (for cigarettes, alcohol, drugs I’m sure)

WIC is pretty difficult to defraud these days, now that everything is done on cards. The only scam that I'm aware of that is effective goes something like this:

- Low income but not on WIC person A wants to stretch her dollar.
- She finds someone who is on WIC
- Person on WIC buys groceries for Low income person
- Low income person gives the on WIC person somewhere between 25 and 50 cents for every dollar's worth of food purchased.

That's pretty uncommon though.

Mostly the crack heads and the like just suck dicks, sell drugs, or steal to make extra money.

The "baby daddy" cycle is pretty common though. The reason these women do it is because they tend to be all of the following:

- Uneducated (high school drop outs if they're lucky)
- Depressed (low self esteem causes them to seek out a man's attention)
- Addicted (to crack, meth, or alcohol at least)
- Religious (no abortion, frequently no birth control)

If a poor woman has her first child before the age of 21, the odds are pretty good that she'll remain poor for her entire life.

There is no good solution for the problem that is also realistic. Good luck trying to "force" people to do anything.

CaffeineAddict says

1) encouraged, educated, and given free contraceptive (which we do but they refuse anyway)
2) be forced to take Depo shots every 3 months for birth control. (which we offer free but they refuse anyway)

Sorry, wrong answer. They aren't having kids because they fail to see the value in birth control. They have kids because it's the only thing they can achieve (from their perspective) of value in life. Perhaps we should force people with genetic diseases to get Depo shots as well? Where does this end? How about giving granny a pill instead of the hip replacement (this is Obama's idea not mine)? How about we develop tests for expensive diseases and force women to have abortions to reduce the cost of health care? The extreme low value placed on life is the real problem. These are real people with real problems and the only solution you have is to limit their biological capacity to reproduce? How about raising the standard of living for these people instead of exterminating them? People constantly argue about taking away social services (the extreme right) or forced extinction (the extreme left) of those they don't see productive. How kind of both of you!

Zlxr ... very intelligent post. There is no doubt regarding the fact that an awful lot of people know how to "work the system." IMO, liberalism believes "everyone" is a good person (except of course those evil conservatives). Undoubtedly, there are many people that need and deserve to be helped. No one is arguing that these people should be left behind. But to reward people through government aid for doing nothing is creating fraud. I see no problem whatsoever with requiring recipients of government aid to do some public service in order to earn it while they are on the program. That alone will effectively eliminate much of the fraud that is so rampant.

CaffeineAddict says

It’s painfully obvious our nation supports sloth and spending, and punishes sacrifice, work, and saving - just look at our federal income tax!

Keep drinking that coffee, it's helping you think. You're making a lot of sense.

I've been reading up on David Stockman recently.

In an Atlantic Monthly December 1981 article he admitted that the 1981 tax cut "was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top [tax] rate" for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich had long ago been coined "trickle down economics" - and it was an unpopular concept with the middle class. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman told the interviewer. "So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

So the difference between the two is marketing. They repackaged the poop sandwich and we gobbled it up.

You make some good points Ray. You should go back to 1996 and help Clinton pass "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996."

Clinton wasn't all bad IMO. A lot of "conservatives" hate him and me too when I point out to them that when it came to fiscal responsibility, Clinton made Bush look like the liberal he really was.

Zzyzzx, you are completely right, responsible people will do what it takes to provide for their children. The problem is that America's "safety net" has become a comfortable hammock. The Chinese save 35-40% of their income BECAUSE there is no government safety net. Now, what would call that??? Wait, it's coming to me...I know!! Its called personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is something the US government doesn't want people to have. The more people took care of themselves, the more apparent it would become that big, massive, bloated government isn't necessary to the degree that it is today. In other words, government would lose power and control over the people. (Before you libs go nuts you'll notice I didn't say eliminate the safety net). After all, how was it that Americas survived before big government ????

canada has far more generous welfare than the US. we give housing to single moms, we wouldn't shame them with food stamps. all the basic nessecities of life really, and we have generally the same employment rate as the US most of the time, a better one at the moment so the crap about promoting dependency is rediculous. There simply arent jobs for everyone, one in 10 people working or looking for work are shit out of luck, through no fault of thier own IMO. If everyone in the US had college degrees right now that fact would remain

Honest Abe says

The Chinese save 35-40% of their income BECAUSE there is no government safety net.

Are you really that ignorant? Do you really know that little about China's welfare system (hey, why don't elderly chinese people have any savings?)

Honest Abe says

Now, what would call that??? Wait, it’s coming to me…I know!! Its called personal responsibility.

No, actually you'd call it socialism.

It's amazing what a country can do when the state owns more than half of the economy.

Once upon a time there was a beautiful Island and 10 people. Each of them fished just enough to feed themselves. Then they elected a "president". Now 9 people had to support 10. Then they decided they needed a "vice-president". Now 8 people had to support 10. The people decided they needed a senator. Now 7 people had to support 10. The burden on the workers continued to grow. The people were becoming impoverished. Pretty soon 5 people had to support 10. In other words the 5 who fished had to give up 50% of their catch to support their government. Soon 4 were supporting 10. Now each worker was beginning to become frustrated and told their government " DO SOMETHING". Government responded by hiring another of the fisherman in order to give out "food stamps". Now 3 fishermen had to support 10, but in return become dependent upon government support. They each got to eat 3/10's of their catch and government contirbuted and additional 1/10th. The remaining 3 fisherman were hungry all the time now, even though they worked full time. Does anyone other that Ray (MR.) America understand the analogy?

Honest Abe says

Does anyone other that Ray (MR.) America understand the analogy?

Why don't the two of you get a room? Narcisstic romance doesn't look so pretty out in the sunlight.

Honest Abe says

Once upon a time there was a beautiful Island and 10 people. Each of them fished just enough to feed themselves. Then they elected a “president”. Now 9 people had to support 10. Then they decided they needed a “vice-president”. Now 8 people had to support 10. The people decided they needed a senator. Now 7 people had to support 10. The burden on the workers continued to grow. The people were becoming impoverished. Pretty soon 5 people had to support 10. In other words the 5 who fished had to give up 50% of their catch to support their government. Soon 4 were supporting 10. Now each worker was beginning to become frustrated and told their government ” DO SOMETHING”. Government responded by hiring another of the fisherman in order to give out “food stamps”. Now 3 fishermen had to support 10, but in return become dependent upon government support. They each got to eat 3/10’s of their catch and government contirbuted and additional 1/10th. The remaining 3 fisherman were hungry all the time now, even though they worked full time. Does anyone other that Ray (MR.) America understand the analogy?

I'm pretty sure that anyone over the age of 10 would get the analogy.

Too bad it's a terrible one.

Honest Abe says

Does anyone other that Ray (MR.) America understand the analogy?

Why not just call him sir, or Captain America? Following him blindly, hanging on his every word... you seem to seek his approval and the way that you stroke each other is kinda creepy. What happens (on that wonderful day) when he leaves this forum for one filled with like-minded people rather than the smattering few of you that lurks here now? I can just imagine your dismay...

O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

Honest Abe says

Once upon a time there was a beautiful Island and 10 people

On your island, the president, vp, senator and the others don't appear to have jobs. Kind of a sucky fantasy island you have, abeabe.

Abe .... they just don't get it.

RayAmerica says

Abe …. they just don’t get it.

This quote is worthy of the patnet hall of fame.

Ray, I beg to differ with you. They refuse to get it. Most 5th graders would understand my simple example. It completly destroys the liberal mindset. "But wait, big, massive, centrally planned, "benevolent", government is NECESSARY to take care of everyone", whine the lib's. When in reality, my example above shows that big, massive, centrally planned, "benevolent", government leads to dependency and impoverishment. Well, except within the political class.

I love it when I get empty, meaningless, pathetic responses. It means I hit a home run, hahaha.

Honest Abe says

Ray, I beg to differ with you. They refuse to get it. Most 5th graders would understand my simple example.

No, *everyone* gets the argument that you're trying to make. We just don't agree with it. Only an idiot would believe that someone disagreeing with them amounts to "doesn't get it".

It completly destroys the liberal mindset. “But wait, big, massive, centrally planned, “benevolent”, government is NECESSARY to take care of everyone”, whine the lib’s.

Really? Who is whining that? Oh, right "the lib's" [sic]

When in reality, my example above shows that big, massive, centrally planned, “benevolent”, government leads to dependency and impoverishment.

Your "example" doesn't show anything other than your ability to attempt to be condescending towards others. Here's a hint: You have to actually know more than someone to be successfully condescending towards them. Everyone else is just laughing at your ridiculousness.

I love it when I get empty, meaningless, pathetic responses. It means I hit a home run, hahaha.

Or that you have reading comprehension difficulties. One of those.

Abe .... you need to realize you are dealing with a very, very high intellect in "Kevin." He has stated we have "nothing to learn from guys that have been dead for over 200 years (our Founding Fathers), thinks he's smarter than Thomas Jefferson, knows more about physics than Albert Einstein. The Duck Dude has provided ample evidence he has a very inflated opinion of his intellect as well. We’re dealing with a very phony, trumped up, egotistical bunch that has elevated itself on a pedestal that is built on a foundation of shifting sand. How anyone can scorn the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is totally beyond me.

RayAmerica says

As technology increases it directly effects productivity, which in turn eliminates jobs

Not necessarily. Productivity gains will usually cause a shift in employment, but it won't necessarily cause a reduction.

tatupu .... the primary purpose of technolgy is to make things work better and faster which in turn will increase productivity in that particular field. Why else do you think productivity has actually increased in a variety of industries while the number of employees has decreased?

Igow, no, an increase in productivity does not prove me or anyone else wrong on the "10 people on an island" issue. Productivity can increase IF one of the islanders chooses to UNDERCONSUME (call that saving) AND chooses to be a RISK TAKER (call that being an entrepreneur) who goes out on a limb to invent a fishing net, for example. Which may fail and not increase productivity. And even if productivity increases, big, massive, parasitic, "benevolent" government leads to impoverishment and dependency anyway.

Government is no solution to economic issues because: (1) government discourages saving, (2) bureaucrats are not entrepreneurs, and (3) government has no skin in the game. A compelling argument for limited, constitutional government, wouldn't you agree? Government cannot efficiently allocate or manage resources, or anything else for that matter.

You can learn all about it - but you won't, because it would crush your liberal, progressive, socialistic world - in: "How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes".

Honest Abe says

Government is no solution to economic issues because: (1) government discourages saving, (2) bureaucrats are not entrepreneurs, and (3) government has no skin in the game. A compelling argument for limited, constitutional government, wouldn’t you agree? Government cannot efficiently allocate or manage resources, or anything else for that matter.

100% correct.

Using your line of thinking, if productivity increases - the pie must increase. And it does. But you still miss the real problem. Its not successful people "hogging the pie". Its that 50% of the productivity of all workers goes to support government, which in turn produces - nothing. Thats the real reason poverty is increasing. Big, massive, parasitic Government is hogging the pie.

Honest Abe says

Using your line of thinking, if productivity increases - the pie must increase. And it does. But you still miss the real problem. Its not successful people “hogging the pie”. Its that 50% of the productivity of all workers goes to support government, which in turn produces - nothing.

"Productivity" is measured in GDP.

Are you suggesting that government consumes 50% of GDP ($7.5T a year)?

And you're also claiming that somehow this 7.5T just goes into a void that nothing useful comes out of? That government contracts don't employ anyone? That entitlement programs don't result in any economic activity?

Total government spending (this means everything from the federal government to every local and state government) amounts to about 40% of GDP. Note that this is *VERY DIFFERENT* from *BEING* 40% of GDP. Once you figure that out, we can talk about how you're wrong about the second part too.

Thats the real reason poverty is increasing. Big, massive, parasitic Government is hogging the pie.

The real reason that poverty is increasing is that we do a shitty job of measuring poverty. Almost half of the people below the poverty line in the US own their own home.

Fun fact: The most popular measurement of poverty is defined as having less than 60% of the median income. Using this measure, by definition, the only way to eliminate poverty would be to radically normalize income distribution.

Talking about poverty rates without defining what they measure is bullshit.

Talking about poverty rates without defining what they measure is bullshit. Then it follows that talking about money (a dollar) without defining what it measures is gotta be equally bullshit. Kevin, you seem to be a smart guy...except it seems you believe what the government says is the truth.

Think of it like this, the government and the fed have morphed into that little, stupid guy behind the curtin at the end of the movie "Wizard of Oz". Rapidly pushing and pulling levers, making thunder, creating distractions in an attempt to scare, confuse and control the people. You haven't learned to listen to what government says and reverse it 180 degrees...because now you're closer to the truth. You haven't learned that government is not your friend. You haven't learned that thruout history government has to ability to become abusive. You haven't learned that "White man (replace with the word POLITICIAN) speaks with forked tongue". You haven't learned that the nine scariest words in the english language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". You haven't learned that government is THE MOST INEFFICIENT way to manage anything ( a race horce designed by a committee [or government] would turn out to be a camel. Big government is not the answer, its the problem. You haven't learned to take what government says "with a grain of salt". You haven't learned to read between the lies.

In other words your basis of evaluation is backwards because many of the premises you believe and learned are backwards. Shadow statistics, cooking the books, lies, deciet, inflation, stealing the value from our currency, special favors, manipulating everything and everyone, empire building, accusing others, engaging in class warfare, gender warfare, sexual identity warfare, politicising everything under the sun, pointing the finger...this from both parties. But apparently you haven't noticed any of that.

What would be the best fix for the country, and its citizens? Returning to a limited, constitutional government. End of line.

tatupu70 says

When you use a computer to replace clerical workers, someone has to make the motherboard, the keyboards, the monitor, etc. as well as create the software.

I think I asked this question before but I'll ask it again. Please name the USA company that is manufacturing computers, motherboards, keyboards and monitors here in the USA.

RayAmerica says

I think I asked this question before but I’ll ask it again. Please name the USA company that is manufacturing computers, motherboards, keyboards and monitors here in the USA.

Not sure why I'm answering your question when you still haven't answered my simple question from yesterday...

In any event, where the computers, motherboards, keyboards, etc. are manufactured is a completely different topic. If you want to discuss why jobs have left the US, start a new thread...

You made the point about the jobs that were "created" in order to make the computers, motherboards, etc. .... not me. It is a valid point as to WHERE they are made, because the technology that is being created is designed to replace man-hours via increased productivity. That translates into job losses for American workers, so of course it matters a great deal as to where these products are manufactured. It also destroys your analogy that increased technology is basically a lateral move when it comes to jobs.

Dear Duck Dude:

I answered the question. It's really not my problem if you have problems with comprehension.

RayAmerica says

That translates into job losses for American workers, so of course it matters a great deal as to where these products are manufactured. It also destroys your analogy that increased technology is basically a lateral move when it comes to jobs

The job losses that occur because companies move jobs overseas have nothing to do with productivity. In fact, higher productivity keeps jobs in the States.

tatupu70 says

The job losses that occur because companies move jobs overseas have nothing to do with productivity.

Why are you suddenly changing the subject (I can only guess LOL)? We were disgussing the relationship with technology and job losses here in America. By the way, do you have that list of companies that manufacture computers, motherboards, keyboards and monitors here in the good old USA?

Dear Duck:

I already provided my answer so there's no reason to elaborate further. But while we're having this nice little chat, do you think the good old USSR was a valid experiment in "sharing the wealth?" If not, how would you go about getting rid of this evil, diabolical "massive wealth disparity" that you and other poor liberals seem to be suffering under?

RayAmerica says

Why are you suddenly changing the subject (I can only guess LOL)? We were disgussing the relationship with technology and job losses here in America. By the way, do you have that list of companies that manufacture computers, motherboards, keyboards and monitors here in the good old USA?

Ray--you keep changing the subject so fast I can't hardly keep up. The subject was how productivity increases don't necessarily cause job losses. Then you tried to change it to discuss job losses in the US. Now you want to talk about technology? Please, try to stay on topic...

Massive wealth disparity is caused by government over-regulation and excessive intervention which puts up numerous hurdles and road blocks to competition. A simple example is trying to get a taxi cab license in NY. Or all of the red tape and government regulation necessary to open a store and employ people.

We've all heard of the junk lawsuits, caused by laws (or loopholes). A $3 Million dollar "wrongful termination" lawsuit when an employee left her job, didn't return [job abandonment] and later said she had a medical release that she sent to her company (which never arrived). Or the dry cleaning establishment sued for $1 Million dollars over a pair of lost pants. I once heard a man say "the happiest day of my life is when I sold my business and didn't have any employees any longer".

And then there is the oppressive "progressive" commie tax scheme here in America. And you people wonder why, and complain that jobs go offshore? Thats because you have manipulation, domination and control in every cell of your body. I'm sorry for the damage you suffered somewhere in your past that has surfaced in you as an adult. Somehow freedom, personal responsibility and independence doesn't resonate with you.

Is that the question now? I was afraid to answer it because I figured it would change in a few minutes.

The answer is no. Perhaps some of the SV workers that read the board would know that... I don't.

Like I said--it's completely immaterial to the discussion at hand.

tatupu70 says

Like I said–it’s completely immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Like I said-thanks in advance for the non answer. LOL!!