The divide in this country is growing, and is alarming

[Weezy]

then they shouldn't get an Art History or Psych degree and expect to have jobs waiting. So many people getting out with worthless degrees that don't help for anything but entry-level/trainee jobs and they feel above that

FTR I made more in a restaurant than I did in my first year of working out of college. I knew it would pay off so I stuck it out. Not sure many want to do that anymore

Tell that to unemployed engineers. It's hitting everyone. Those with great degrees and great GPAs are struggling as well. Your best shot is who you know, and I think that's a dangerous line.

 

[HSVol]

Your best shot is who you know, and I think that's a dangerous line.

I'm not sure that's much different than any other time in history.

 

[KiffinKiller]

then they shouldn't get an Art History or Psych degree and expect to have jobs waiting. So many people getting out with worthless degrees that don't help for anything but entry-level/trainee jobs and they feel above that

FTR I made more in a restaurant than I did in my first year of working out of college. I knew it would pay off so I stuck it out. Not sure many want to do that anymore

Ya. Wasn't talking about Psych majors but I agree in that regard. What it comes down to ultimately is that it is currently the worst time to get out of university.

 

[utvolpj]

Tell that to unemployed engineers. It's hitting everyone. Those with great degrees and great GPAs are struggling as well. Your best shot is who you know, and I think that's a dangerous line.

there are many more graduating with majors that will not help them get a job. Just having a 4yr degree will not get you hired anymore. Yeah it's tough but sometimes you have to suck it up and take a lesser job until something better comes along

I'm not sure that's much different than any other time in history.

don't think so either

 

[HSVol]

I am sure that some people go through this demotivation experience, but I doubt very seriously that it's public assistance that caused this widening gap between the median net worths of whites versus blacks and Hispanics.

So, LG, I'd still like for you to help me understand how welfare helps people get out of poverty. If you can provide any facts, that would be appreciated.




And one more question for those that don't favor increased education spending: Why do we have the most powerful military in the world?

 

[utvolpj]

And one more question for those that don't favor increased education spending: Why do we have the most powerful military in the world?

we spend more on it than anyone else. Funny but we do the same with education too and still suck at it. Find the differences and you'll probably figure out how to fix it

 

[HSVol]

Very interesting literature out there regarding education spending.

Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

Some interesting figures and compelling statements indicate that throwing more money is not the answer to the problem, however resource allocation could be more effective.

I found this statement particularly informative:

Education reform efforts should focus on improving resource allocation. Instead of simply increasing funding, efforts to improve education should focus on improving resource allocation. Chart 5 compares high graduation rates and per-student expenditures in the nation's 50 largest cities. In many cities, spending per student exceeds $10,000 per year, yet graduation rates are below 50 percent. For example, in Detroit, per-student spending is approximately $11,100 per year, yet only 25 percent of Detroit's students are graduating from high school according to a recent estimate.[21] In these communities and across the country, policymakers should focus on reforming policies and resource allocation to improve student achievement.

Productive reading, IMO.

However, I need to do more resource on actual funding in the South. I'm pretty interested to see how those figures stack up.

 

[lawgator1]

So, LG, I'd still like for you to help me understand how welfare helps people get out of poverty. If you can provide any facts, that would be appreciated.




And one more question for those that don't favor increased education spending: Why do we have the most powerful military in the world?

With regard to your first point, I did not say that "welfare" helps people "get out of poverty." But the argument from the GOP has been that, not only should we cut welfare, but we should decrease taxes on the wealthy (or at least leave them the same).

And I think it important in this respect to distinguish between the types of entitlement programs. Morally, there is no distinction between the likes of Medicare and Social Security versus food stamps. They are both based on the premise that we collect taxes from some, and redistribute that to others.

The GOP has had food stamps and WIC and such programs in their sights for 40 years. Yet, it wasn't until the last 2 years that we've seen the GOP really contemplate reform to SS and Medicare that will result in a reduction in benefits. Why is that?

 

[lawgator1]

Very interesting literature out there regarding education spending.

Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

Some interesting figures and compelling statements indicate that throwing more money is not the answer to the problem, however resource allocation could be more effective.

I found this statement particularly informative:



Productive reading, IMO.

However, I need to do more resource on actual funding in the South. I'm pretty interested to see how those figures stack up.

I'm sorry but the source of your information is so politically loaded that its hard to debate on their playing field.

Having said that, I am not advocating simply increasing the budget. That is silly and wasteful. Nonetheless, I do think that every reputable study out there says that increasing class sizes is a major factor in the public schools generally failing.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm sorry but the source of your information is so politically loaded that its hard to debate on their playing field.

Having said that, I am not advocating simply increasing the budget. That is silly and wasteful. Nonetheless, I do think that every reputable study out there says that increasing class sizes is a major factor in the public schools generally failing.

wonder why that is? Wonder how universities get by with drastically larger class sizes?

 

[volinbham]

With regard to your first point, I did not say that "welfare" helps people "get out of poverty." But the argument from the GOP has been that, not only should we cut welfare, but we should decrease taxes on the wealthy (or at least leave them the same).

It's based in a belief that this will do the most for the economy and therefore equal the most opportunity to move everyone forward. You may disagree that this will work but labeling it racist or saying it is the result of racial hate speech is simply wrong. Many here believe the dependency that social programs can bring hurts the poor and minorities - should we label advocates of those programs racist?

And I think it important in this respect to distinguish between the types of entitlement programs. Morally, there is no distinction between the likes of Medicare and Social Security versus food stamps. They are both based on the premise that we collect taxes from some, and redistribute that to others.

Not sure what your point is here but there is a difference between programs such as ones that provide cell phones to the poor and those that provide healthcare or basic food.

The GOP has had food stamps and WIC and such programs in their sights for 40 years. Yet, it wasn't until the last 2 years that we've seen the GOP really contemplate reform to SS and Medicare that will result in a reduction in benefits. Why is that?

They did attempt to reform SS and got blasted for it. The answer to why now is that we've added so much debt over the last 2-5 years that it is clear that it is unsustainable. SS and Medicare are the 2 biggest sources of spending in addition to the military (and yes they even recommend cuts here). Add to that the demographic bubble and anyone - I mean anyone who isn't looking at reforming this programs (I'm talking to you Harry Reid) is a fool

 

[lawgator1]

wonder why that is? Wonder how universities get by with drastically larger class sizes?

Well, first, the environment at a university versus in a high school is substantially different and I don;t think you can compare the two.

Second, although I don's have any data and would not know where to look for it, I would be surprised if one did not find that similar classes taught with small numbers of students typically fare much better than the multi-hundred lecture hall versions.

I know that in my own experience, thinking back to my freshman year at UF, I was lost from moment 1 in Calculus and never had a prayer of getting back on track. The 300 plus students in there with me, and the professor a tiny object down there somewhere near the front of the room, didn't help.

 

[volinbham]

Nonetheless, I do think that every reputable study out there says that increasing class sizes is a major factor in the public schools generally failing.

link?

 

[HSVol]

With regard to your first point, I did not say that "welfare" helps people "get out of poverty." But the argument from the GOP has been that, not only should we cut welfare, but we should decrease taxes on the wealthy (or at least leave them the same).

If welfare isn't supposed to help people get out of poverty, what is its purpose? If it's not to help people get through difficult times, then it surely is perpetual. No?

The Heritage Foundation is conservative. This is true. However, it's a legitimate and respected think-tank. Can you provide counter points?

And "W" tried to privatize SS during his presidency, which, unless I'm mistaken, is longer than two years ago.

 

[droski]

Just anecdotal evidence but I know now more than several people that either were or are unemployed so long that it seriously impacted their drive, motivation and self-esteem. None would be people I would call freeloaders but all to some extent were on the pathway to dependency.

It's enough for me to seriously question just how destructive the entitlement culture can be.

sitting at home all day by yourself and not bringing home any money has to be depressing and hurt your motivation.

 

[lawgator1]

They did attempt to reform SS and got blasted for it. The answer to why now is that we've added so much debt over the last 2-5 years that it is clear that it is unsustainable. SS and Medicare are the 2 biggest sources of spending in addition to the military (and yes they even recommend cuts here). Add to that the demographic bubble and anyone - I mean anyone who isn't looking at reforming this programs (I'm talking to you Harry Reid) is a fool

First, I really do believe that holding onto this outdated notion that lower taxes always causes growth, especially in the current environment, and especially for the very top of the economic ladder, has proven to be unjustified. No one really seems to believe this anymore.

In fact, when I do see this argument being made -- that lower taxes on the wealthy will result job growth -- it is always coming from longstanding business people who themselves even seem unconvinced of it at this point. They say it, because maybe it sued ot be true. But they wince when they say it now.

I rarely see this argument being made by the TPers. Instead, their argument is a fairness argument. Their claim is not that lowering taxes on the wealthy will help the economy, but rather that lower taxes on the wealthy and cuts in spending for the poor is fair because the wealthy deserve to be wealthy and the poor deserve to be poor.

There is almost a Calvinistic attitude out there amongst the far right on such matters. It is disturbing. And I think it is commentary from that wing of the GOP -- which so oddly in my mind seems to be carrying the mood up there in DC at the moment -- that makes me question the motives of the GOP at this point in time.

Your comment at the end that we have incurred all of this debt in the last 2-5 years derails the topic because it makes me want to (properly) point out that the majority of the debt came about prior to 2009. More significantly, if you look at the long term debt issues, those problems have been brewing for decades, if not theoretically speaking since the inception of the programs.

I fully recognize that these issues have to be dealt with. Cuts are inevitable, including cuts that will affect me in 20 years. And I'm okay with that. But I do think that Obama is fundamentally morally and philosophically correct -- the best and fairest way to bridge the budgetary gap is to cut spending AND increase taxes on the very top of the economic ladder.

For one thing, it is politically palatable to do so. The polls clearly show this. Second, it seems to me that a more balanced approach is healthier for the long term economy. Sure, if we had $5 trillion in nothing but spending cuts tomorrow, the stock market would be through the roof. For awhile. But then the effects of those cuts would eventually catch up with us, and probably sooner rather than later. So let's spread the pain, as it were.

Last, you have to ask what we are all about. If its all just a mad rush to accumulating wealth and power, and without regard to a system of government and economy that will look out for the bottom as well as the top, then what's the point? I mean, I respect the likes of Ron Paul because he speaks in terms of unadulterated free enterprise. But the way we are set up, we see time and time again how poorly that works for us, the consequences of it, etc.

I'm not against free enterprise, just like you aren't against maintaining a government-run safety net. The trick is to strike the right balance, and right now the safety net for millions side of the equation is in danger of being run over for the sake of just a few, imo.

 

[droski]

First, I really do believe that holding onto this outdated notion that lower taxes always causes growth, especially in the current environment, and especially for the very top of the economic ladder, has proven to be unjustified. No one really seems to believe this anymore.

In fact, when I do see this argument being made -- that lower taxes on the wealthy will result job growth -- it is always coming from longstanding business people who themselves even seem unconvinced of it at this point. They say it, because maybe it sued ot be true. But they wince when they say it now.

I rarely see this argument being made by the TPers. Instead, their argument is a fairness argument. Their claim is not that lowering taxes on the wealthy will help the economy, but rather that lower taxes on the wealthy and cuts in spending for the poor is fair because the wealthy deserve to be wealthy and the poor deserve to be poor.

There is almost a Calvinistic attitude out there amongst the far right on such matters. It is disturbing. And I think it is commentary from that wing of the GOP -- which so oddly in my mind seems to be carrying the mood up there in DC at the moment -- that makes me question the motives of the GOP at this point in time.
.

you are seriously arguing that no one believes lower taxes helps teh economy anymore and therefore it's all about screwing the poor? jesus you need to get out of your bubble. you do realize the bush tax cuts lowered taxes for everybody right?

 

[lawgator1]

If welfare isn't supposed to help people get out of poverty, what is its purpose? If it's not to help people get through difficult times, then it surely is perpetual. No?

The Heritage Foundation is conservative. This is true. However, it's a legitimate and respected think-tank. Can you provide counter points?

And "W" tried to privatize SS during his presidency, which, unless I'm mistaken, is longer than two years ago.

Privatizing SS is not the same thing as changing the eligibility age, tying benefits to some sort of means testing, or adjusting the COLA formula.

The proposal to privatize at least a part of SS is worthy of debate, imo. But I truly have to wonder what the f he was thinking putting that out there at a time when America views Wall Street as a giant con game, themselves the victims. That was never going to fly.

 

[sjt18]

Returning to my original post and the simple fact of the divide, I think the question is what can be done about it. I can't see how increasing taxes on the poor is the answer. Maybe it's too much for my pea brain to comprehend, but how taking more of their meager income is a solution is beyond me.

No one has proposed increasing taxes on the poor. That straw man is burning.

Would think we are better off with more education, perhaps some concerted effort at bringing some industry to blighted areas where decent paying jobs can over the long term improve their chances.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Again you seem to see a victim instead of people who fail to take responsibility for themselves.

Why are these areas "blighted"? Poverty you say? Those areas have far more "wealth" than any white middle class neighborhood had 50 years ago. The problem is the people and the values they hold.

There are things that can be done but they probably aren't ideas that folks like you will accept.

First, vouchers or some other privatization program for education. The education system in these "blighted" areas are almost always broken. The homes are almost never sound. You NEED a system where the child can be given both a better education AND a very "conservative" values education. You MUST address both what they are now missing in school AND what they are missing at home. Private and particularly religious schools do a much better job of this than do public schools. The public schools are hand tied in this regard and it is absolutely critical.

If you can't challenge some of the cultural norms that lead to the problems (which public schools can't to a great degree) then you cannot fix the problem. Educate a criminal or someone with a poor value system... all you get is a better educated non-productive or counter-productive person.

Second, law enforcement. It may be necessary to establish curfews. There needs to be more police presence. There MUST be longer sentences for violent or repeat offenders. You cannot get business back into these areas without safety. Any effort by gov't to force or incent it back in... will fail otherwise.

Third, the left has to stop telling these people that they are victims and that someone else has to solve their problems for them.

Again, not ideas you like... but we've tried it your way for about 50 years and things in those poor communities have gotten worse in virtually every social measure.

 

[lawgator1]

you are seriously arguing that no one believes lower taxes helps teh economy anymore and therefore it's all about screwing the poor? jesus you need to get out of your bubble. you do realize the bush tax cuts lowered taxes for everybody right?

If I said "no one" believes that I didn't mean to and that would be wrong. But support for that theory seems fairly muted to me this go-'round. Do you not agree?

 

[droski]

Privatizing SS is not the same thing as changing the eligibility age, tying benefits to some sort of means testing, or adjusting the COLA formula.

The proposal to privatize at least a part of SS is worthy of debate, imo. But I truly have to wonder what the f he was thinking putting that out there at a time when America views Wall Street as a giant con game, themselves the victims. That was never going to fly.

LG. reading joe six packs mind since 2006

 

[BigPapaVol]

LG. reading joe six packs mind since 2006

solid

 

[lawgator1]

No one has proposed increasing taxes on the poor. That straw man is burning.

You are wrong. That is the very purpose of the GOP plan for tax reform to "broaden the base."

The GOP tax reform plan is not about making sure that more wealthy people pay more in taxes, I assure you. If you believe that its about coming up with a tax plan whereby their constituency pays more, well, then we really cannot have a meaningful discussion about it.

 

[lawgator1]

LG. reading joe six packs mind since 2006

solid

Funny.

But you know I'm right.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You are wrong. That is the very purpose of the GOP plan for tax reform to "broaden the base."

The GOP tax reform plan is not about making sure that more wealthy people pay more in taxes, I assure you. If you believe that its about coming up with a tax plan whereby their constituency pays more, well, then we really cannot have a meaningful discussion about it.

You don't seem to understand poor. When half the country pays no federal income tax, broadening the base would have to be exponential to capture the actual poor.