Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Debt, and why it is killing our government

The following report from NPR on school systems that have taken the equivalent of "payday loans" is disgusting. It shows how bureaucrats love spending "other peoples money" and consequences be damned. This is why the US will eventually default on the debt. Take this scenario and repeat a hundred times, over 50 states and DC, and the answer becomes obvious.

-----

More than 200 school districts across California are taking a second look at the high price of the debt they've taken on using risky financial arrangements. Collectively, the districts have borrowed billions in loans that defer payments for years — leaving many districts owing far more than they borrowed.

In 2010, officials at the West Contra Costa School District, just east of San Francisco, were in a bind. The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school.

Charles Ramsey, president of the school board, says he needed that $2.5 million upfront, but the district didn't have it.

Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table.

- Charles Ramsey, school board president, West Contra Costa School District "We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."

Those bonds, known as CABs, are unlike typical bonds, where a school district is required to make immediate and regular payments. Instead, CABs allow districts to defer payments well into the future — by which time lots of interest has accrued.

In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

by Anonymousreply 10912/14/2012

'The School District Equivalent Of A Payday Loan'

Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."

But that doesn't make the arrangement a good deal, says California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. "It's the school district equivalent of a payday loan or a balloon payment that you might obligate yourself for," Lockyer says. "So you don't pay for, maybe, 20 years — and suddenly you have a spike in interest rates that's extraordinary."

It's so irresponsible, that if I were on a school board — which I was, 40 years ago — I would get rid of that superintendent. - Bill Lockyer, California state treasurer

Lockyer is poring through a database collected by the Los Angeles Times of school districts that have recently used capital appreciation bonds. In total, districts have borrowed about $3 billion to finance new school construction, maintenance and educational materials. But the actual payback on those loans will exceed $16 billion.

Some of the bonds can be refinanced, but most cannot, Lockyer says.

Perhaps the best example of the CAB issue is suburban San Diego's Poway Unified School District, which borrowed a little more than $100 million. But "debt service will be almost $1 billion," Lockyer says. "So, over nine times amount of the borrowing. There are worse ones, but that's pretty bad."

A Statewide Problem

The superintendent of the Poway School District, John Collins, wasn't available for comment. But he recently defended his district's use of capital appreciation bonds in an interview with San Diego's KPBS Investigative Newsource.

"Poway has done nothing different than every other district in the state of California," Collins told the program.

And he's right. In some cases, districts are on the hook to pay back anywhere between 10 and even 20 times the amount they borrowed.

But Lockyer says it distresses him to hear school officials defend these bonds.

"It's so irresponsible, that if I were on a school board — which I was, 40 years ago — I would get rid of that superintendent," Lockyer says.

Back in the '90s, the state of Michigan banned capital appreciation bonds altogether. But Lockyer says California needn't go that far. He supports a series of reforms such as capping the payback of debt to four times the amount borrowed. Otherwise, says Lockyer, these bonds will be paid well into the future, by the children of today's students.

by Anonymousreply 112/10/2012

OP is an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 212/10/2012

This is why we need more Federal control of the schools, not less. We need to take the power away from the local school boards and put it in the hands of people who know what they're doing.

Look at any property tax bill anywhere in the USA, and the major expense is schools, but we let the Assistant Manager of the local Sears, and the housewife who was head of the PTA for 5 years sit on these Mickey Mouse school boards and make multi-million dollar decisions (and select the textbooks, plan the curriculum and hire staff).

I'll take the bureaucrats OP is bitching about any day over the amateurs who control our schools now.

by Anonymousreply 312/10/2012

R3 has obviously never managed a large, multilayer company. If ALL decisions were controlled by DC, imagine the layer after layer after layer of bureaucracy it would require. Do you think these people are angels, who would always do the best for "the little people"?

Look at the USSR and get back to us, if you have an IQ above room temperature.

by Anonymousreply 412/10/2012

R1 and r4 are the same shrill fucktard who would never ever entertain cutting the military or transfer payments to the oil companies or raising the taxes on the rich "job creators." Go suck on Mary Matalin's scabby dried out old cooze you twatwaffle.

by Anonymousreply 512/10/2012

OP/R4's IQ isn't above room temperature. And let me tell you, it's a chilly room.

by Anonymousreply 612/10/2012

R5-

Wasting trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the trillions spent over the last 50 years in "black ops") is a major part of the problem. We have destabilized the Mideast for over 60 years in covert ops. No wonder they hate the US.

The "corporate welfare" that we give to the top 50 companies in the US would pay for SS/Medicare for another 100 years. We have "bailed out" the biggest banks (and given them free reign over our system) and allowed our government to become a system of payments from the bottom 99.9% to the top .01%.

Congress, on both sides, is beholden to big business and big labor and big banks and the military and the companies that serve these bigs.

So, fuck off, troll.

by Anonymousreply 712/10/2012

Oh, and lest we leave out big prisons, which have profited greatly from the "war on drugs". Or big pharma, which has profited from the cartels that will make a handsome profit from the ACA.

by Anonymousreply 812/10/2012

Tax the rich and end corporate welfare. Slash the ridiculous Pentagon budget. Problem solved.

by Anonymousreply 912/10/2012

God, I forgot Big Oil!

They are probably the worst, and their funding of our attempts to control the Mideast would require a book.

by Anonymousreply 1012/10/2012

R9, a 95% tax on those that make over $100M a year...I would agree, because 99.9% of them do it by having a supine congress pass laws that make it easier for them.

Ending corporate welfare is a no-brainer...but I don't hear Obama or Pelosi or Reid calling from the rafters for that.

No, they enjoy the money they get from them, and love the perks.

A high level staff member (chief, or even assistant) can easily get a $1-10M/yr job after retirement. And you better believe their former boss gets great Xmas gifts.

Look at how the former Bush staff members have profited since 2008. Even better, look at the +$100M that Clinton has made since 2000.

Open your eyes.

by Anonymousreply 1112/10/2012

R12 = moron

by Anonymousreply 1312/10/2012

Have you noticed that most of the people who complain about debt are the ones who created it in the first place and who, when pressed about what to do about the debt, demonstrate that they really don't give a shit about the debt? I have.

by Anonymousreply 1412/10/2012

I have too, R14.

They also don't understand the source of debt, or the way debt works. Most of the things they propose to "fix" the debt actually exacerbate it (i.e. "Austerity Measures" and drastically cutting government funding and services).

by Anonymousreply 1512/10/2012

There was a guy (a hot young blond) on MSNBC this morning who is trying to get John Boehner replaced because he said he was open to some revenue. The guy not only wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts, but he wanted even more tax cuts. He said "we have to do something about the national debt" as if tax cuts would help.

by Anonymousreply 1612/10/2012

[quote]He said "we have to do something about the national debt" as if tax cuts would help.

They always say that and, maddeningly, they always get away with it because the national media won't call them on their bullshit. Paul Ryan is still said to be "serious" about the deficit, to be a "policy wonk" and "deficit hawk," despite the fact that his numbers don't add up, his policies make no sense, and his proposals would make the deficit worse, at least in the first ten years.

by Anonymousreply 1712/10/2012

R12- F&F

R14-

The ones who created the debt are the big corps, big oil, big pharma, etc.

They don't complain because their paychecks are paid from it.

R15-

Austerity is just cutting all the spending on wars, corporate tax breaks, big banks.

R16-

That "hot blond" is a moron named Amash who is trying to become the next Reagan- a "conservative" who amps up the military and deficit spending while pretending to be anti- government. Fuck him, and Rand Paul.

R17-

If you think Paul Ryan will help, you're too ignorant to reply. He's just another big government guy. He and Rubio deserve all the scorn you heap on them.

This thread shows how incompetent government control of the school system has been. No one can respond to the actual facts- they just pull out "talking points" like it's fucking FoxNews!

by Anonymousreply 1812/11/2012

R17-

Can you troll somewhere else?

You are killing intelligent discussion with your posts. Should taxes be 100% for everyone? Then the government could just give money to everyone, and we would all be happy.

by Anonymousreply 1912/11/2012

[quote]This is why we need more Federal control of the schools, not less.

Cupcake, we most certainly do *not* need more federal control of schools, nor will this ever happen. Schools always have and always WILL be the purview of states and municipalities.

Some of you have gotten off on a sidetrack of bitching about federal debt. Not that I disagree with you, but that has precisely jack shit to do with public schools, which receive little to no federal aid. The problems in local public schools vary considerably from city to city and state to state, but undoubtedly the biggest single problem on a national level has been the domino effect from the economic downturn, particularly in regards to property values and sales tax revenue (the former being the basis for generating revenue for schools in many cases). What the hell are you supposed to do when your budget drops 25% or more over a matter of 2-3 years, but your student population remains fairly steady? This is exactly what's going on in places like Phoenix and a big swath of California. You can only layoff so many teachers and delay maintenance and repairs for so long before schools start to fall apart, literally and metaphorically.

So yes, in the interim, schools are fucked - and California schools are *particularly* fucked because of its ridiculous limits on property taxes for people who've lived in their homes for 30-plus years. As Warren Buffett has noted, he only pays about $3,000 a year in taxes on a Malibu beach house worth about $5 million, for instance. (This is the same reason why California has by *far* the biggest state budget deficit in the country.)

by Anonymousreply 2012/11/2012

I just have to reply to R17 one more time.

She won't address the issue- schools, or counties, or states, or even the Feds taking out a $2.5 Million loan that requires a $34 Million repayment. The rest of us are going to have to repay the rest of the $31.5 Million...but it doesn't matter to them.

R17, answer that or begone, troll.

by Anonymousreply 2112/11/2012

[quote]Austerity is just cutting all the spending on wars, corporate tax breaks, big banks.

Dream on.

by Anonymousreply 2212/11/2012

R20-

Yes, only 10% is funded federally, but schools "compete" for those funds...and as in this case, make catastrophic decisions based on the "it's not MY money, it's federal money".

This creates situations like this.

Do you think New Mexico wants to go to war with Iran? No, but 28% of the budget goes to fund companies, schools and parks and museums and whateve the fuck they want because they can get money from DC. Why? Because they get most of their money for these regions from the Dept of Offense and military companies.

by Anonymousreply 2312/11/2012

It is a dream, R22, because if the people were educated (oops, not gonna happen in public school$!) they would see that cutting those would allow domestic welfare to continue.

The big banks and big military rule this country, and the schools.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

by Anonymousreply 2412/11/2012

Wall Street speculators set up doomed-to-fail investment ventures. Then they sucked in school boards, pension directors, and union welfare funds and robbed them blind when the investments failed.

When Wall Street saw their profits threatened as their schemes collapsed, they got a bailout financed with our tax funds.

The private equity fund that bought Hostess is walking away from a billion dollar commitment to the employee pension funds, funds that the workers supported, making sacrifices from their wages and gave to the company, counting on those pensions for retirement.

The company used the worker's money to keep the company alive long enough that they were able to arrange million dollar salaries for the executives plus similar severance packages, court approved.

When the company failed, Wall Street blamed guess who? -- greedy workers and their union. We have posters on this board who blame local citizens sitting on school boards for funding problems of schools. Same thing.

Where is the austerity for the billionaires who ran this scam? I don't support the death penalty, but if you are a hedge fund manager who skimmed money from schools and retirement funds of workers, I will gladly make an exception.

If you want to be merciful, put those Wall Street bastards on a bakery assembly line with no retirement funds. Make their children go to under-funded public schools.

by Anonymousreply 2512/11/2012

Debt is not killing our government. Japan has more and they are breezing along. However, one must as oneself what caused the debt? Tax cuts for the rich caused the debt. End the tax cuts for the rich, end the debt. 50% tax on the rich, the US is awash in money.

by Anonymousreply 2612/11/2012

R7, just so that you know- that bail out of the banks? It was repaid by those banks with interest. (That is not to say that they have gotten off scott free from their crimes and House Repubs have made sure to water down regulations so necessary to prevent it from happening again.) So that DID NOT contribute to the national debt. The national debt we carry now is a result of tax cuts under W, two wars he did not include in his budgets and a recession (mostly of his making) which reduced revenue. OP is kind of a one note screed. The US Federal gov't will not default on its debt. Not in my lifetime anyway and as long as Democrats are in power. The Repubs voted to spend the money under Bush, then brought our nation to the brink holding Dems responsible for the debt they decided they would default on if they did not have their way. Would that we could all do that with our credit cards.

Fact is we have a totally irresponsible political party in this nation- devoid of facts, reality and a working knowledge of how gov't works, and has worked in our country since the beginning (compromise.)

by Anonymousreply 2712/11/2012

We are in debt for one reason. Local, state, and federal governments spend more than they take in. Politicians promise any and everything for votes.

by Anonymousreply 2812/11/2012

I think a fantastic place to start would be cutting our RIDICULOUS defense spending, which of course would mean bringing the troops home from this fake war. But then our unemployment rate will spike, and Washington know this. What a sham.

by Anonymousreply 2912/11/2012

OP is one of those debt concern trolls who loved cheerleading for the accumulation of debt through warmongering when it happened, and now wants to blame others for his binge.

by Anonymousreply 3012/11/2012

R30: Exactly.

Debt is never a problem if the money goes to Haliburton, to wars, to Israel, to whoever is the U.S. thug du jour around the world.

Debt becomes a problem when it means giving somebody health care, food, housing, education and public services. Then the one percent, the Tea Party, and OP decide it is cut the services that help the great majority.

National debt is not a problem anyway because the U.S. dollar is one of the most trusted money in the world -- look at the interest rates on bonds.

In any case, if we would borrow more at the moment and invest it in rebuilding the infrastructure, new schools well stocked with teachers, more postal employees, fire fighters, police, etc, and pay them decent wages, the added tax base would help reduce the deficit.

We would also create a society that would be more efficient and hence more productive.

by Anonymousreply 3112/11/2012

You cannot use California as an example. Decades ago, those morons passed a constitutional amendment barring any increase in property tax without a 2/3 majority in the legislature. As we all know and an earlier poster pointed out, schools are primarily financed by property taxes (locally) and federal subsidies. CA voters cut off their noses on school funding.

by Anonymousreply 3212/11/2012

[quote]We are in debt for one reason. Local, state, and federal governments spend more than they take in.

Everything is black and white and matte in your world, isn't it?

[quote]Debt is never a problem if the money goes to Haliburton, to wars, to Israel, to whoever is the U.S. thug du jour around the world. Debt becomes a problem when it means giving somebody health care, food, housing, education and public services.

R31, debt is not a partisan issue, even if Republicans try to make it out as one. You're entirely correct that it's noxious and farcical and hypocritical that they whine and whine and whine about debt but do absolutely *nothing* to reduce expenditures in areas like defense spending and corporate welfare, but nevertheless the national debt is an issue that affects all of us.

Personally, I think we should hike taxes back up to what they were in the Clinton years, tax gasoline by at least a dollar a gallon more (by global standards American gas is farcically cheap), institute a national value-added tax, dramatically *increase* spending on most social services, and at the same time eliminate pork-barrel spending, absurd outlays for outdated weapons technology, and military expenses including ones that get little traction or notice in the U.S. Were you aware, for instance, that we have a permanent force of nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, and have had it stationed there for SIXTY YEARS now (at a cost of untold trillions), never mind that South Korea has LONG since recovered from war and could easily finance its owned armed forces? And that's on top of tens of thousands of troops still in Europe as remnants of fucking World War II!

by Anonymousreply 3312/11/2012

R32:

Yes. California used to have the best educational system in the country, therefore the world, really, kindergarten through college.

Education everywhere is an issue of property tax which splits apart the income levels. If you have money, your neighborhood can afford good schools or you can afford a private school. In either case, why should you pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? (That's the thought pattern.)

If you are in a poor neighborhood it is like pulling teeth to get money for schools, hence poor equipment, larger class size, and disorganized families. The best predictor for success in school -- the economic and social success of the parents.

That's the insidious part of teacher evaluation. Who is doing a better job -- a teacher who is working with children from a well-to-do neighborhood who gets really good scores on standardized tests? Or is it the teacher in a poor neighborhood who gets good scores, not as high perhaps, but good scores in relationship to what he has to work with?

by Anonymousreply 3412/11/2012

[quote]Education everywhere is an issue of property tax which splits apart the income levels. If you have money, your neighborhood can afford good schools or you can afford a private school. In either case, why should you pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? (That's the thought pattern.)

Amazingly, Texas (of all places) has one of the more progressive school funding programs in the country, designed specifically to avoid what you're talking about. Its so-called "Robin Hood" school finance scheme requires every school district in the state to contribute a sizable chunk of its property tax revenue into a communal pool that is evenly re-distributed back to the districts on a per-student basis, to schools both rich and poor. While it certainly has a shitload of problems in practice, and it hasn't stopped most wealthier districts from doing an end-run around parts of it by financing projects like construction of new schools and (this being Texas) incredibly elaborate high school football stadiums via bond referendums, it's a well-intended concept that was passed back before the Republicans took over the Governor's Mansion and legislature, when the sainted Ann Richards still ran the show.

by Anonymousreply 3512/11/2012

R19--I hope you write ironically

by Anonymousreply 3612/11/2012

R32, the reason that Californians voted to freeze property tax increases was that Sacramento changed the way that school taxes were distributed. As I understand it, all school taxes are sent to Sacramento and distributed from there. No money stays in the school district. Since the home owners had no say in how the money was distributed. They decided to freeze property taxes in retaliation.

by Anonymousreply 3712/11/2012

[quote]As I understand it, all school taxes are sent to Sacramento and distributed from there. No money stays in the school district.

...which is the whole problem: obviously individual voters will, if given a CHOICE, be focused only on their own district's schools, particularly if the prospect of some of their goddam-hard-earned tax dollars going towards funding the "colored" schools in South Central L.A.! It is impossible for comparatively rich and comparatively poor schools to be on a level playing field, which is what *should* be equitable in a state's educate system, with this kind of funding mechanism in place.

by Anonymousreply 3812/11/2012

[quote]Austerity is just cutting all the spending on wars, corporate tax breaks, big banks.

Not out here in the real world. What it's doing is cutting spending on infrastructure, on jobs, and on the safety net, and sending countries into another recession.

[quote]If you think Paul Ryan will help, you're too ignorant to reply.

The R17 post was an attack on Ryan, not in support of him. Do you really have this much trouble reading?

[quote]This thread shows how incompetent government control of the school system has been. No one can respond to the actual facts

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

by Anonymousreply 3912/11/2012

[quote]R17, Can you troll somewhere else?

No.

[quote]You are killing intelligent discussion with your posts.

"Intelligent discussion?" From you?! The mind boggles....

[quote]Should taxes be 100% for everyone?

No. Did you have a point to make or do you just want to engage in more "intelligent discussion?"

[quote]She won't address the issue- schools, or counties, or states, or even the Feds taking out a $2.5 Million loan that requires a $34 Million repayment.

The plural of anecdote is not data. And your example has nothing to do with what is happening on the federal level, nor with the other conspiracy theories you bring up. Nor does it support your proposed "solutions." So you're right, I won't address "the issue," because it's not an issue.

[quote]R17, answer that or begone, troll.

No.

by Anonymousreply 4012/11/2012

R38, the problem with your thinking is that you assume that the well to do don't have a choice. They do. The can afford to take their kids out of the public school system entirely, and they have the power to prevent tax increases. If necessary, they have the financial resources to pick up an move elsewhere. No one can make them be altruistic without really turning this country into a police state.

Another issue with California is how over regulated it is and how Kafkaesque the implementation of the regulations are. CA has lost a lot of industry because it is just not profitable to operate in CA.

One example, CA has decided that brass keys are toxic. Actually, according to CA Prop. 65, just about anything made from brass is hazardous to your health. This is typical of CA. If the Federal Government comes up with a regulation, CA has to take it to an extreme just to prove that it can.

The implementation of regulations is cuckoo as well. I know someone who had to remake the concrete wheelchair ramp to his store four times because the inspector could/would not tell him what was wrong with the ramp. All the inspector could do was to tell him it did not pass inspection. Similarly, a factory that I worked in (it has since moved out of state) was fined because the white line going down the center of the hall way was 1/4" too wide.

by Anonymousreply 4112/11/2012

[quote]Should taxes be 100% for everyone? Then the government could just give money to everyone, and we would all be happy.

There are some morons on DL who believe just that. Never underestimate the idiocy of some people on DL. There's a reason they're failures at life.

by Anonymousreply 4212/11/2012

R41, the problem with *your* thinking is that allowing the rich to define tax-increase levels is largely why the federal government is so royally fucked in terms of debt (as they're overwhelmingly favored by the Bush-era tax cuts), and doing so fails to serve the *overall* common good -- NOT just what's "good for the rich" -- and also the basic promise of providing a quality basic education for America's children as a WHOLE, not just elite public schools for the wealthy. There's a substantial difference between "altruism" and simply being an Ayn Rand-esque Republican asshole who's only looking out for his own good.

As for complaining about regulations: I agree that too many of them are bad and often counterproductive for business and/or the steady flow of commerce, but the flip side is that too FEW of them can lead to people taking advantage of the system, which is precisely what happened over most of the past decade and resulted in a near GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE in 2008. I'm not going to try to argue that it's not almost impossibly difficult to find a steady balance between the two, but we've been much more negatively affected as a whole by a *lack* of regulation than *too much* of it.

by Anonymousreply 4312/11/2012

The states bordering on bankrupty are all contolled by Democrats. California is first on the list.

by Anonymousreply 4412/11/2012

[quote]The states bordering on bankrupty are all contolled by Democrats.

Such as? Examples, please, but I'll point out that the state with the second-largest debt problem is solidly Republican Texas, which had to use federal stimulus money, of all things (with a teabagger governor!!), to help plug a $25 billion budget deficit last year.

by Anonymousreply 4512/11/2012

R43, Actually, I agree with you. In reverse order.

I was talking about over regulation in CA specifically. Yes, in many parts of the US industry is under regulated. And don't get me started about the law that the FDA must give 30 days notice before they can inspect a meat processing plant. Or the fact that Monsanto lobbied not only to be exempt from having to label their genetically engineered foods as such, but lobbied to prevent other companies from being able to label their food as non-genetically engineered.

I agree that it cannot be just about what is good for the rich, but at the same time you cannot make policy without taking into consideration that the well-to-do have choices. When it comes to schools, it is not just the very rich who can opt out of the public school system. The middle class also has the option to find alternatives to public school education. It is not about the difference between altruism and Ayn Rand. It is about the difference between Ayn Rand and wanted what is best for your child. Far to many people expect other people to accept a lesser education for the greater good. That is not acceptable to most parents. If it is the education of their child that is question, they will do most anything, including move out of state is necessary, to see that their child gets a good education. We need to stop trying to have a fantasy of one quality of education for everyone. All this thinking has done is to make parents who are concerned about their children's education opt out of the public school system.

by Anonymousreply 4612/11/2012

R46, I see your point, but at the same time I question your comments about the wealthy and "opting their kids out" of public schools. Sure, they can obviously enroll them in private schools, but unless California law is substantially different from most other states, that doesn't exempt them from having to pay the same taxes for public schools that they'd otherwise pay. (Btw that, in theory, *helps* the rest of the district by maintaining revenue levels while reducing class loads.) I also agree with your point about the middle classes wanting/needing to provide their own kids with the best options as well, but I disagree with your proposed method, which I assume is charter schools even though you didn't state so explicitly. I'm completely against charter schools, personally, and think the only realistic equitable option is fixing the *current* system as opposed to setting up a *third* system. There's already a big enough disparity between private and (most) public schools as it is. Having private as well as charter schools widely disseminated would inevitably result in the worsening of an already-bad schooling situation for those at the bottom of the ladder.

Btw I don't disagree that parents will move heaven and earth to get their child a good education, but at the same time I think there's a widespread, and false, assumption that having a child attend even a "middle-brow" school (six or seven star-rated instead of ten) would automatically result in them receiving a subpar education. Yes, better teachers tend to migrate to the less-stressful and generally higher-paying confines of affluent suburban schools, but at the same time it's not a *school's* role alone to ensure a child is educated; much of what leads to a strong work ethic in terms of students studying and excelling in class comes from a child's innate rearing, not anything a teacher can somehow instill. Sure, part of the reason good teachers migrate to the 'burbs is also out of frustration with a lack of work ethic in kids who come from economically disadvantaged families (on a very general basis), but that doesn't mean *all* teachers are like that.

by Anonymousreply 4712/11/2012

R47, as I friend of my says, it sound as if we are in violent agreement. I too loath the whole idea of charter schools.

Again, I was talking specifically about CA where Prop 13 limits the amount of property taxes. However, people who are not part of the system will fight having to contribute into a system that does not benefit themselves. They may not have a child in the school system, but they do have a vote.

This is not just a Rich/Poor issue. I leave in a very upper middle class to wealthy town. The town has changed its zoning laws to discourage, if not outright prevent apartment construction. The reasoning is that it cost approximately $150,000.00 per year to educate a child and apartments increase the number of children in the school system without a comparable increase in property taxes.

We had a great public school system in this country. We need to take a look backwards and see what worked and why.

Of course, one of the things that we need to address is how changes in our culture have affected public school education. As you quite correctly pointed out, our school systems cannot do it all alone. We need parents who support the school system, rather than try to undermine it. We need parents who do not expect the schools to do the parent's job for them, whether it is providing breakfast or providing discipline. And please don't attack me for being racist. I know more than a few middle class parents who fit that description. And, being in the 'burbs, I can't say that the work ethic is necessarily stronger out here.

However, we also need politicians that do not try to undermine the school system whether it is for financial gain or for social engineering.

by Anonymousreply 4812/11/2012

R48, I don't think you're racist, and like you eloquently stated, we appear to violently agree.

by Anonymousreply 4912/11/2012

i look forward to when we as a nation default on our debts. the banking system is reaping huge profits at EVERY NATION'S EXPENSE. default, put them out of business and start over.

by Anonymousreply 5012/11/2012

Agreed, R50. Default would fuck all the insurance and pension plans, but at least it would destroy the central government of the US in the process. Then California and New York and Alabama, etc. could create a better, decentralized system that wouldn't involve killing everyone in the middle east.

by Anonymousreply 5112/11/2012

R27- you know nothing about the debt repayments. You believe the media lies, and probably think Iraq had WMDs.

by Anonymousreply 5212/11/2012

Why does everyone say "the OP doesn't want to cut the defense spending or the corporate welfare" when all of my posts have said exactly that? Are you too programmed to believe that only Rethuglicans can talk about how fucked up our government is?

Cutting the bank subsidies, military spending and corporate bailouts would save trillions.

That, though, does not excuse the gross mismanagement of these fuckers in the California school system.

All schooling needs to be returned to the local level, with no federal or even state interference. Let the PARENTS decide.

by Anonymousreply 5312/11/2012

R33-

So, giving MORE money so they can waste it on wars and bailouts and intrusions to our civil liberties is the answer?

You are a fucking moron.

by Anonymousreply 5412/11/2012

I just trolldar'd R33 and realize she is the same ignorant twat at R20/33/35/38/43/45/47 who believes that the government should control every aspect of life.

Obvious that she's a Frau at the DMV. Or IRS. She is obviously not a teacher or she would realize that throwing MORE money at a broken, failed and incompetent system that employees more bureaucrats than teachers (in California the ratio is now over 1:1 for bureaucrats to teachers) is insane.

by Anonymousreply 5512/11/2012

You do realize, R55, that nobody cares about your delusional rantings, right?

by Anonymousreply 5612/11/2012

R39/40/56

If you could give any substantive rebuttal to these remarks instead of cunty and information free replies, I would engage you in debate.

You know nothing, and cannot refute any point I've made. Not one, just snark. You "appeal to authority" that these issues have been settled by great(sic) minds, and expect people to accept your rantings.

Tell us why "debt doesn't matter" and why spending/printing this money helps (when for 5 years and trillions later, we are worse off than we were) or shut. The. Fuck. Up. Cunt.

by Anonymousreply 5712/11/2012

R57, you haven't made any points or provided any information worth refuting. It's all insane ramblings and idiotic conspiracy theories and libertarian delusions. As soon as you actually post something worth engaging, you'll find some people willing to engage you. Until then, we're either bored or laughing, e.g., at the idiotic assertion that "we are worse off than we were."

by Anonymousreply 5812/11/2012

R58-

Why is allowing the US to take on over a trillion dollars in debt each year "good" for us?

There's a question.

by Anonymousreply 5912/11/2012

R58

Why is allowing school districts to take out loans that require payments 14 times the amount of the original loan good for us?

You can't blame this on anyone but the government parasites.

by Anonymousreply 6012/11/2012

R58-

Why is giving trillions to the banks, while calling on raising taxes on the middle class, a good thing?

by Anonymousreply 6112/11/2012

[quote] "Why is allowing the US to take on over a trillion dollars in debt each year "good" for us? There's a question.

As a conservative republican, let me answer the question: it's good becuase it's a necessary check and balance against the capitalist greed most commonly associated with Republicans. I should also note that debt is a tax break for the RICH, since they buy bonds, but let's set that aside for a second.

What the public said, resoundingly, this past election, is that they would rather our government print money in order to maintain some semblance of social justice and societal compassion, while preventing the "economic hit" of forcing people into poverty and then scooping up their assets at firesale prices. It tells the "job creators" to create the jobs, or be prepared to pay unemployment and welfare benefits, rather than clinging to capitalism at any cost.

In other words, this election, more than any since 1932, had the American people effectively telling the conservatives that while they are theoretically correct under our system, a system which does not serve the masses is not worth serving. You cannot run a party on a platform that touts a level playing field while simultaneously attempting to rig the game. If you do this, the masses will revolt, as they did against Romney.

Much as I would rather have seen no bailouts, and much as I'm no fan of the New Deal or the Great Society (except in a bare-bones way), I would rather we print $1 trillion in debt every year, than to lead ourselves to the slaughter at the hands of money-hoarders who will profit incredibly from "austerity."

The rich need to get the memo that if they don't start pumping money into the economy, the government will, and if they don't like inflation, well that's just too damn bad.

Capitalism is a SYSTEM. Human beings are living, breathing things. At the end of the day, the latter should always come before the former.

THAT is why our current debt levels are "good." They are a fitting punishment to the rich who are trying to collectively starve the poor.

by Anonymousreply 6212/11/2012

R61,

Recapitalizing the banks was bad enough, but leaving the same corrupt people in power is just a recipe for disaster.

In a way, it's a microcosm of what's wrong with America: we need to reward merit, intelligence, work-ethic, and achievement. Good luck waiting for that to happen in a society overloaded with selfish, idiotic, lazy criminals.

Democracy is simply rigged against the deserving. We lack numbers and always will.

by Anonymousreply 6312/11/2012

R62

You may be a Rethuglican but you are NOT conservative. Fascist, perhaps.

The vast majority of the ultra rich today got that way by using the government to inhibit competition, create barriers to entry, use complex banking "vigs" to extract wealth or by simply buying legislators that would give them monopolies. That is NOT conservative, or liberal, but mercantilist or fascist.

There are some legitimately very wealthy people. Or, perhaps not. Zuckerberg has worked with The Agency since college. Gates and Jobs might have been legit except their abuse of the copyright and patent system. Disney? Walton family? Buffett? Nope, all have used the power of government to expand and destroy. Don't get me started on Morgan, or Rockefeller, or the Vnderbilts.

No, the very wealthy owe their lives to control of the apparatus of government, and so when morons like R58 defend that apparatus in defense of "the little people" it makes me sick. She's a sick cunt.

I think taxes are theft, but if they took 99% of the wealth from the top .001% it wouldn't bother me, since they got it illegitimately.

But the top 1%? Fuck you, 99.9% of them got it by doing the hard work, making things people wanted, and we work our asses off to keep it that way- innovating, creating new and better ways of doing things, giving people what they want and need at better prices with higher quality.

So you can go to hell motherfucker. You are the perfect Rethuglican- too stupid to see how stupid you are.

by Anonymousreply 6412/11/2012

[quote]Why is allowing the US to take on over a trillion dollars in debt each year "good" for us? There's a question.

You already know the answer; you just don't like it because it contradicts your economic religion. It's basic Econ 101: federal spending needs to be counter-cyclical, increasing during the economic down times to reduce the severity and the length of the downturn, then paying back during the economic good times.

None of this is new. We've done this for 80 years or so, with good results. It took a know-nothing Republican Congress to decide that 80 years of economic lessons should be abandoned, with predictable results.

by Anonymousreply 6512/11/2012

[quote]Why is allowing school districts to take out loans that require payments 14 times the amount of the original loan good for us?

It isn't, but my local school board hasn't done that.

[quote]You can't blame this on anyone but the government parasites.

Actually, I can, and do, blame it on local school boards, which means that there is no broader lesson here, no matter how hard you try to come up with one.

by Anonymousreply 6612/11/2012

[quote]Why is giving trillions to the banks, while calling on raising taxes on the middle class, a good thing?

I dunno; why don't you ask the Republicans who are calling for that?

As for giving "trillions" to the banks, in case it has escaped your notice, there was a near-meltdown a few years ago.

by Anonymousreply 6712/11/2012

[quote]But the top 1%? Fuck you, 99.9% of them got it by doing the hard work, making things people wanted

ROFL.... See why we have so much fun with you? All you can do is pull numbers out of your ass, most of which are too stupid to be worth engaging and are fit only to be laughed at.

by Anonymousreply 6812/11/2012

[quote]and so when morons like [R58] defend that apparatus in defense of "the little people" it makes me sick. She's a sick cunt.

ROFL.... And this is the other reason we love your posts. You don't actually read what we write but instead make up shit and then attack those strawman arguments of your own creation. You post some seriously hilarious shit.

by Anonymousreply 6912/11/2012

R64,

Even the 1 percent needs the 99 percent or there is no heap to top.

If trickle-down worked, it'd be raining money like Sandy in a strip club.

What I said was simple: if conservatives acted like TRUE conservatives, the rich would create jobs, we'd have full employment, and a balanced budget. We don't.

In the past election, we had a choice between starving the poor to feed the rich or printing money to feed the poor, at the expense of the rich. I don't agree with the outcome of the election, but I more than understand why the voters tilted the way they did.

by Anonymousreply 7012/11/2012

[quote]As for giving "trillions" to the banks, in case it has escaped your notice, there was a near-meltdown a few years ago."

A meltdown with which we should never have interfered. We could have bailed out the economy from the ground up. No specific bank needed to survive for the economy to survive.

Liberals are abandoning their own ideology if they ignore the slaughter of our meritocracy inherent in the bailouts. We have literally put power and money in the hands of the corrupt and stupid...twice. When the second time inevitably fails, should we go for thrice?

by Anonymousreply 7112/11/2012

[quote]A meltdown with which we should never have interfered.

We didn't initially, remember? Enough people who were aware of events at the time have claimed that the Lehman Brothers collapse was about to bring down the entire financial system and economy. Was this true? I have no way of knowing for sure but based on the events of the time certainly led credence to that. With the entire financial system at stake, the Federal Reserve and the federal government felt they had no choice.

Maybe this was all manipulative bullshit. I honestly don't know.

[quote]Liberals are abandoning their own ideology if they ignore the slaughter of our meritocracy inherent in the bailouts.

No argument here, which is why I want Glass-Steagall restored and the "too big to fail" financial institutions broken up and strictly regulated.

by Anonymousreply 7212/11/2012

R70, if people with money (not the parasitic .01%) felt like they could do it without becoming a target of the tax and spend Republicrats, or the regulate everything Demoplicans, they would. They are hoarding cash because they don't know how to employ to create PRODUCTIVE jobs. Unless they want to do some project approved by 5 or 6 powerful senators they are scared. That's why our economy is crashing.

This is why people with money are going to Costa Rica, or Morocco, or Cambodia- they can take their money and create wealth in places that don't tax and regulate them to death.

R71

Too true. As long as Bush was bombing Iraq, the "liberals" were calling for his head. When Obama does it...nada. The left has sold its soul to power.

The banks should have failed, and will fail. The result will be misery, but at least we will have freedom to rebuild.

Everyone thinks that because they "saved the system" (aka bailed out their biggest campaign contributors) in 2008 that they can do it again. Sorry, but when the next systemic failure starts (and it won't be long) they will be helpless.

by Anonymousreply 7312/11/2012

[quote]That's why our economy is crashing.

Really? Out here in the real world, the economy is slowly recovering. What's it like in your world?

[quote]This is why people with money are going to Costa Rica, or Morocco, or Cambodia- they can take their money and create wealth in places that don't tax and regulate them to death.

Yes, why just look at all of those people going to Cambodia! There must be millions of them! ROFL.... Tell me, does it even occur to you to actually think about what you write here or do you just vomit it forth?

[quote]The banks should have failed, and will fail.

Really? Out here in the real world, they've been recovering.

[quote]Everyone thinks that because they "saved the system" (aka bailed out their biggest campaign contributors) in 2008 that they can do it again. Sorry, but when the next systemic failure starts (and it won't be long) they will be helpless.

So you've been claiming for years. So far, though, you're batting .000. Let me know when even one of your predictions comes true, won't you?

by Anonymousreply 7412/11/2012

I was in Cambodia a few months ago. Amazing. The "French Quarter" in SIem Reap is amazing, and the Raffles hotel is CHEAP! It's an old world hotel with a modern wing, and still just $180 per night. Coolest pool ever.

The opportunities are amazing.

Do you want to hear about the beach in Costa Rica? Or how cool Columbia is during the winter?

Fuck Morocco. Too euro trashy. And they are selling out to the EU.

Your delusions are quaint, but I've PWNED you.

by Anonymousreply 7512/11/2012

[quote]I was in Cambodia a few months ago. Amazing. The "French Quarter" in SIem Reap is amazing, and the Raffles hotel is CHEAP! It's an old world hotel with a modern wing, and still just $180 per night. Coolest pool ever.

That's lovely, dear. Give my regards to all of the other millionaires that have abandoned the U.S. to live there, won't you?

[quote]The opportunities are amazing.

I'm sure they are, dear. Why just the other day, I was talking to Warren Buffett about Cambodia....

[quote]Do you want to hear about the beach in Costa Rica? Or how cool Columbia is during the winter?

Go for it, dear; I'm sure it will be absolutely fascinating.

[quote]Fuck Morocco. Too euro trashy. And they are selling out to the EU.

LOL.... I'll be sure to keep that in mind, dear.

[quote]Your delusions are quaint, but I've PWNED you.

ROFLMAO.... Only in your fevered imagination, dear. Out here in the real world, I'm afraid this post of yours was just your usual unsupported drivel. And what it shows is that, as usual, you are wholly unable to back up any of your assertions with anything resembling real data.

Tell us again how the economy is "crashing," won't you? I can use a good bedtime story.

by Anonymousreply 7612/12/2012

[quote]We didn't initially, remember? Enough people who were aware of events at the time have claimed that the Lehman Brothers collapse was about to bring down the entire financial system and economy. Was this true? I have no way of knowing for sure but based on the events of the time certainly led credence to that. With the entire financial system at stake, the Federal Reserve and the federal government felt they had no choice. Maybe this was all manipulative bullshit. I honestly don't know.

If you know you need to vomit, do you stop the process, or do you try to settle the poison deeper inside your stomach?

The financial system wasn't at stake. The ONE PERCENT were threatened with poverty. You can't GO broke if you already ARE broke, and our government could just as easily have protected the regular folks as they did the one percent. The "crisis' was that previously wealthy people who thought their way of life was SO superior were about to be proven wrong.

Had we simply let nature take its course, our debt wouldn't be so high, and the system would have begun the rebuilding process we are *yet* to see. Kind of like if someone had begun college in 2009 instead of now, they'd be closer to graduation.

At some point, the markets would have stopped dropping, and the smart money would have kicked in. At some point, the recession would have bottommed out, and real growth, based on merit rather than cronyism, would have ensued. Those in power managed to fool the easily-fooled massses into ignoring this, and instead to buy into a policy that amounts to "keep the wealthy, wealthy," even if the "wealthy" are now just welfare bums who don't deserve a pot to piss in, let alone a CEO's paycheck.

In the Depression, we let the bottom fall out, we started on a level playing field, and we actually had closer to a true meritocracy than we have seen since.

Right now the "rich" are like those arrogant young adults living in hi-rises in Manhattan, who conveniently don't mention the big checks they get from Mom and Dad back home in Kentucky, etc.

The "money" question on the Gamblers' Anonymous intake form is "Have you ever had a BAILOUT?"

Our economy would have recovered just as well, if not better, had we simply written $5,000 checks to every US citizen.

by Anonymousreply 7712/12/2012

[quote]So you've been claiming for years. So far, though, you're batting .000. Let me know when even one of your predictions comes true, won't you?

By then, letting you know won't do much to fix the horror story that will be our economy.

People used to say this about those who predicted the crash of other bubbles. As many say, the markets can remain irrational for much longer than most can remain solvent.

To get out of debt, we need to either:

1. Raise taxes 2. Cut spending 3. Print money

Take your pick. Raising taxes won't put a dent in the deficit. Cutting spending will hurt GDP, and printing money causes hyperinflation.

While I am a conservative, I definitely empathize with liberals who would rather print money until we are bankrupt, rather than let the Mitt Romneys of the world thrive under a system which serves only those like him.

To paraphrase the Supreme Court: "Capitalism is not a suicide pact."

by Anonymousreply 7812/12/2012

[quote]Tell us again how the economy is "crashing," won't you? I can use a good bedtime story."

Once upon a time, you had a country, full of lazy, selfish people with a ridiculous sense of entitlement. When times were good, they were promised ridiculous levels of pension and retirement benefits, as well as unlimited healthcare. Since they outnumbered the unselfish, hard-working, and skilled, they won election after election, and shaped the country in their own image.

They borrowed money via their government, never really concerned with whether or not it could be paid back. Their coalition of those receiving entitlements, civil-service worker unions, and the wealthy (who could dodge higher taxes through tax-free bonds) ensured that their agenda would continue to win the day in Washington.

Over time, the cost of this type of government exceeded the government's ability to pay for it, so it kept borrowing money, and rolling over the debt by "reborrowing" it. This was made possible by something called "credit default swaps" (CDSs), a type of "insurance policy against default on the debt. The backstop (sewer) for all this credit-insurance was a company named AIG. AIG effectively guaranteed the entire global credit market, since without this, interest rates would have strangled the economy.

As the debt party continued, money was repeatedly leveraged, with the ration of debt-to-real-money hitting the stratosphere, to the point where any minor economic stumble would trigger default, due to there being no margin for error, as we were barely making the minimum debt-service payments on what we collectively owed. Finally, the housing market tipped many into insolvency, which caused those swaps to "light up the tote board" by cashing in. AIG was going to make good on all those broken debt promises.

The problem was that AIG didn't have the money to pay off the credit-insurance. Without AIG paying its debts (the debts of others), those who were counting on that inssurance, like Goldman Sachs, stood to lose billions. Those who relied on those parties to pay their debts lost more billions, and the ripple effect of each member of the debt chain defaulting was going to destroy exisitng wealth (not the economy, just the wealthy).

Despite our being capitalists, we decided that rather than letting people go broke, as a natural consequence of poor financial decisions, we cleaned out the sewer with a large bailout to AIG, plus we had the fed print money to buy T-bills, and we had them buying toxic assets off the companies who would have gone bankrupt without the intervention.

What we call a "recovery" is more like a broken fall halfway down a skyscraper by hitting scaffolding. Our tremendous existing wealth is being tapped at a record pace (particularly retirement money), while we are also cutting spending, moving in with each other, and working for a fraction of what we were. Older people aren't suffering so much, since they have those promises of pensions and entitlements they believe the government is bound to make good, even as our young face a lifetime of underemployment or poverty.

The story will end as our aged population exhausts its wealth, while the normal expenditures from the young fail to materialize. We can pump more and more money into the system, so everyone will have a lot of money, but that might cause inflation. We can cut spending, but the coalition voters get angry (as they did this year), and will demand their entitlement checks, since they "paid into the system" and "earned it." That they elected people who looted the system as they were paying into it is something the young are supposed to ignore.

Once upon another time (now), there's a generation of twenty-somethings earning $10.50 an hour at shit jobs, while people in their fifties who goofed off at government jobs all day are collecting four times that in pensions, even as their only economic contribution now is the healthcare costs they run up.

The happy ending comes in a few months when the debt ceiling is raised again.

by Anonymousreply 7912/12/2012

[quote]By then, letting you know won't do much to fix the horror story that will be our economy.

Uh-huh, so people have been claiming for years, with absolutely no data to back up those claims. Forgive us if we don't take these latest claims any more seriously than those other claims.

The person I've been having fun with on this thread is a Rondroid, a libertarian, a gold bug, an anti-Fed troll, wholly disconnected from reality. He's been predicting disaster for years. It's really a religion with him, so he's immune to any counter-argument, any data, any logic.

[quote]People used to say this about those who predicted the crash of other bubbles.

There's one big difference: those pointing out that we were in a bubble that was going to crash had the data to back up those claims. That was true of the housing bubble, of the Internet bubble from a few years earlier, and of today's gold bubble.

[quote]To get out of debt, we need to either: 1. Raise taxes 2. Cut spending 3. Print money. Take your pick.

There isn't any reason why we have to pick just one. All of these have their place in a deficit discussion.

[quote] Raising taxes won't put a dent in the deficit.

Actually, letting *all* of the Bush-era tax cuts expire puts an enormous dent in the deficit and, personally, I'm in favor of that, although not just yet.

[quote]Cutting spending will hurt GDP

That depends on when you do it and how you do it. We should keep spending high until the economy is well on the road to recovery, at which point we should definitely cut it. And the area we should focus on is health care costs, as they are the single largest component of our future deficits. Bring those under control and you've gone a long way towards solving our long-term problems.

[quote]and printing money causes hyperinflation.

Not necessarily. Under the current circumstances, such hyperinflation cannot happen, so there's no problem with doing that now, so long as it's done judiciously, which the Fed has been doing.

[quote]While I am a conservative, I definitely empathize with liberals who would rather print money until we are bankrupt

Sigh.... Few, if any, liberals want that. We just want a sane economic policy that relies on reality and on long-standing principles and on lessons learned from prior economic downturns.

by Anonymousreply 8012/12/2012

[quote]The financial system wasn't at stake.

You don't know that. It was definitely frozen solid, with no money moving through the system, and with clear signs of a massive collapse pending. People I trust were telling me that the sky really was falling, and there was a very real fear about a domino effect, with one institution after another going down. Just letting one collapse had a devastating impact.

[quote]Had we simply let nature take its course, our debt wouldn't be so high

That's another thing that you don't really know. We didn't actually incur that much debt from the bailouts. And if the financial system truly had collapsed, that recession really would have turned into a depression, with all of the costs that go with that.

[quote]and the system would have begun the rebuilding process we are *yet* to see.

Actually, the economy has been slowly recovering for some time now. Just what kind of "rebuilding" did you have in mind?

[quote]In the Depression, we let the bottom fall out, we started on a level playing field, and we actually had closer to a true meritocracy than we have seen since.

But at what cost? We learned some very painful lessons from the Depression. Sadly, we're having to learn at least a few of them all over again now.

[quote]Our economy would have recovered just as well, if not better, had we simply written $5,000 checks to every US citizen.

These two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, we should have bailed out the financial system, assuming that it really was as close to collapse as feared, and yes, we should have given money to the people who would spend it, thereby improving demand, which is what has been lacking thus far.

by Anonymousreply 8112/12/2012

plenty of room to cut defense, HUGE cuts. With those we'd still spend more on defense than all other countries put together. Take it all from the top 2%, the wars and defense. No reason to take more from and hurt and destroy those who have already sacrificed so much over the past 35 years.

by Anonymousreply 8212/12/2012

" I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. "

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend around 1800.

Remove the borrowing power from the federal government and the following would disappear within a year: all wars, all 'terrorism', all 'Columbines', the CIA, the Military Industrial complex, "HIV/AID$", "man-made global warming", the list would be almost endless.

by Anonymousreply 8312/12/2012

If the schools don't have enough money, then perhaps one solution is to raise taxes to pay for them. To suggest that taxes can't be raised -- at least for some people -- is ludicrous.

While I can understand why people don't want to pay more taxes, I can't understand why they want their services to suffer.

by Anonymousreply 8412/12/2012

[quote]Remove the borrowing power from the federal government...

And you'd cripple the federal government. Governments need to be able to borrow, even more so during the down times when the need is so much greater.

I applaud the sentiment in your post but banning borrowing isn't the answer. This is one area where I'll listen to Alexander Hamilton over Jefferson.

by Anonymousreply 8512/12/2012

[quote]While I can understand why people don't want to pay more taxes, I can't understand why they want their services to suffer.

Mostly they don't. Poll after poll shows the majority very willing to pay additional money if they feel that the money is being used properly and if they know where it's going.

by Anonymousreply 8612/12/2012

As if I needed more proof that whoever provides the "opinions" of MPC is out of their fucking mind.

by Anonymousreply 8712/12/2012

Our government is paying close to 0% on its debt. It has never made more sense to carry debt than with these extremely low interest rates.

by Anonymousreply 8812/12/2012

I wrote "The financial system wasn't at stake."

R81,

[quote]You don't know that. It was definitely frozen solid, with no money moving through the system, and with clear signs of a massive collapse pending. People I trust were telling me that the sky really was falling, and there was a very real fear about a domino effect, with one institution after another going down. Just letting one collapse had a devastating impact.[/quote[

Sure, people with money, people with bloated salaries, bloated pensions, inefficient businesses, and all the things which contributed to the crisis felt fear, much like a burglar should feel fear when confronted by a homeowner.

It's scary that people don't get how poisoned the system is, and remains, because of these bailouts. The system failed the people because the people failed the system, from the wealthy at the top, to the people at the bottom who voted them in. I predicted the collapse back in 1993, after working eight weeks at a b2b consulting firm, watching suits bill work I was doing for $10 an hour at $100-300 an hour. It was hardly rocket science to know this was unsustainable, but when *everyone* is feeding at the trough, the truth will fall on deaf ears.

I took shit for fifteen years over my views, with people saying the system was fine, I was wrong, corporate America was not corrupt, and I was bitter becuase I had removed myself from a system which punished efficiency, honesty, and whistleblowing. I carved out a creative path for myself which made me immune to what I knew what coming, but I still have to suffer the folly of others. The problem is that most of the "others" think they are the victims, rather than the ignorant bystanders.

I don't care how smart people think they are. I scored genius-level on the IQ tests, AND spent a lifetime educating myself on a multitude of topics, by thinking for myself. When a supercharged brain spends almost every waking moment developing itself, it's not going to have much respect for those around it. Before 2008, I understood why people called me arrogant; afterwards, I just threw up my hands and have been embraching the socialist horror ever since.

People who espouse your arguments remind me of those who preach self-sufficiency in public, then pick up the phone to beg Mom and Dad for monmey to prop up their lifestyle in private. Those bailouts and deficits are the "private" part of this, the "minor detail" that unravels your entire argument. If your way of political life is so sound, we never would have needed bailouts. Bush just doubled down on a process begun under FDR, and exacerbated under Johnson.

I wrote: "and the system would have begun the rebuilding process we are *yet* to see."

[quote]Actually, the economy has been slowly recovering for some time now. Just what kind of "rebuilding" did you have in mind?[/quote]

A terminally ill patient with a surge of energy is not healthy. The only way to properly rebuild this economy is to trust in capitalism, let nature inflict the carnage we deserve, protect the poor, level the playing field, start punishing those who break laws (again many "good" people are the problem here), and let MERIT determine who gets wealthy, rather than bailouts or economic inertia.

When will this occur? When we can no longer print money. It would have occurred already had we not done this in 2009, to the tune of $10 trillion or more, if you count all the purchases of toxic assets by the Fed.

Liberals remind me of my ex-boss, who loved to act all alpha around the office, yet who wanted me to understand why he almost couldn't pay me one week (he lied to his banker to get a quick loan to pay me). That boss then laid me off because I was too expensive, in favor of some frau who fit the stereotype, except she stole $20,000 from him. Multiply that type of stupidly by 300 million people and you can see how hopeless it is. Tell me I'm whining and bitter when I'm trying to warn of impending Armageddon and you'll remain blind.

by Anonymousreply 8912/12/2012

R81,

[quote]But at what cost? We learned some very painful lessons from the Depression. Sadly, we're having to learn at least a few of them all over again now.[/quote]

The one lesson we did NOT learn from the Depression was to not bail out criminals and losers. After years of rebuilding after vacating corporate America, I had a HUGE payoff in early 2009, just as the system was "freezing" as you put it.

The "fear" you speak of was the fear of people like ME taking over. I had a very low overhead (people with more cash had more expenses so they didn't have more disposable cash), and a large pile of money that would have been worth ten times as much had we not just printed everyone back into solvency. That was my reward for living right, for avoiding every trap the world fell into. I didn't need your sympathy, your money, or even your opportunity. I needed CAPITALISM to remain in force in this country, something I had taken for granted.

Again, attacking me emotionally over this injustice ignores the injustice. Who deserves wealth in this country? People who looted it, or those smart enough to avoid the crisis, to make money when others couldn't, and who could thrive without socialist welfare bailouts? Give money to me, it multiplies, and isn't wasted. Give it to those who bankrupted this country, and they will just blow through it again.

I'm still the smartest guy in the room. Awarding 20 points to everyone else's tests won't change that. I would have been just fine without any bailouts in 2009, and in fact could have picked up a lot of assets really cheap. Now that I know we are socialist, I have regrouped and no longer worry about silly things like efficiency or merit, and just work the system like everyone else. Why shouldn't I? We no longer reward skill or hard work. I'll still get mine, but I have to suffer the cost of the idiots who take from those who make.

I've seen threads here which say wealth and power should be allocated by IQ. That's a similar argument to what I'm saying here. Putting power and money in the hands of the corrupt, the lazy, and the stupid is financial suicide. Just like everyone thought the housing market was fine until that bubble popped, people will have no problem with this Bailout Nation until the sovereign debt bubble pops.

I don't have a problem with welfare, to the extent it prevents homelessness, starvation, and allows for medical care. I even believe in nationalized health care, guarnateed housing, and guaranteed food, but I'd never support a single cent above that being spent on the public.

What I said here is that I understand why the selfish, entitled, corrupt (or silent bystanders) welfare bums, recipients of bloated entitlements, and the stupid would rather print money than let the Mitt Romneys of the world destroy them financially. It's definitely the lesser of two evils, but there is a third, much better way.

I know I get no sympathy. Gay kids don't get sympathy from those who bully them. Those robbed don't get sympathy from those who steal from them. That people don't like me, or what I say, says I'm doing my job in a world where most are not, or where they are overpaid for what they do.

Perhaps after you've busted your ass for a quarter-century straight, at 80-100 hours a week, while living on a fraction of what some mindless idiot makes at a job s/he doesn't deserve, you'd see things more my way, but I doubt it.

There are many smart people on DL. There is also a class of people who make "smart" people look like APES by comparison. Don't hate me because I'm a genius. I'm also smart enough to know just how futile it is to preach to those with their hands in the till. People like me will never have the numbers to defeat people like you in a Democracy.

All I can do is work around the damage, but thankfully my genius brain makes that child's play...once I understand the rules. I was merely blindsided by our shift to socialism...once. I don't repeat my mistakes.

by Anonymousreply 9012/12/2012

[quote]Our government is paying close to 0% on its debt. It has never made more sense to carry debt than with these extremely low interest rates. [/quote]

Those are short-term interest rates. If they reset higher, we're fucked. Fortunately, there are no other safe investments.

If the 1970s are any indication, we'll have a few years of very nasty inflation, then a reset similar to the early 1980s, after a recession similar to the one Reagan induced in 1981-82 to set the table for the mega-expansion which followed.

One bright spot is that all that money the Chinese are making is seemingly finding its way back here, due to our political stability. This is how we beat Japan twenty years ago, and it's beginning to look like history might repeat itself.

by Anonymousreply 9112/12/2012

[quote]Sure, people with money, people with bloated salaries, bloated pensions, inefficient businesses, and all the things which contributed to the crisis felt fear

Sigh.... So did everyone else: small business owners, entrepeneurs, people who wanted car loans or home loans ... everyone. A financial meltdown, which this appeared to be, hits the entire society, top to bottom, and no society can afford it.

[quote]It's scary that people don't get how poisoned the system is, and remains, because of these bailouts.

Except that you have not been able to provide any data or any kind of logical rationale as to why the system is "poisoned."

[quote]I just threw up my hands and have been embraching the socialist horror ever since.

I'm deleting most of your rant because there's nothing to respond to. As for "socialist horror," since that in no way describes the U.S. or the events of the past half dozen years, I'll pass on that, as well.

[quote]People who espouse your arguments remind me of those who preach self-sufficiency in public, then pick up the phone to beg Mom and Dad for monmey to prop up their lifestyle in private.

Sigh... Did you have a point to make?

[quote]Those bailouts and deficits are the "private" part of this, the "minor detail" that unravels your entire argument.

So far, I'm not seeing any data that would indicate that my "entire argument" is "unravel[ing]." Did you have a point to make?

[quote]If your way of political life is so sound,

Since you have no idea what my "way of political life" is, I'll pass on this, too.

[quote]A terminally ill patient with a surge of energy is not healthy.

Except that you have not provided any data that the "patient" is "terminally ill." The available data indicate otherwise.

[quote]The only way to properly rebuild this economy is to trust in capitalism

Um, no, thanks. I don't trust unfettered capitalism any more than I trust unfettered socialism or communism. I prefer appropriate rules and regulations to level the playing field, since capitalism, by itself, won't.

[quote]When will this occur?

Never, nor is it needed.

[quote]When we can no longer print money. It would have occurred already had we not done this in 2009, to the tune of $10 trillion or more, if you count all the purchases of toxic assets by the Fed.

Not gonna happen. I think you need to go back to school and learn a bit more basic economics.

[quote]Liberals remind me of my ex-boss

Sigh... And another pointless anecdote/rant deleted.

[quote]Tell me I'm whining and bitter when I'm trying to warn of impending Armageddon and you'll remain blind.

I'll just tell you that you need to provide a lot more data and a lot more logical rationale than you have thus far. Most of that lengthy post was worthless. You obviously believe what you're saying but, so far, you don't have the data to back it up.

by Anonymousreply 9212/12/2012

R77-

During the first depression (not to be confused with the ongoing greater depression) the government did intervene, repeatedly, in the economy. Jobs digging ditches and then filling them at night, massive money printing, confiscation of assets- the government did a LOT, and it made it worse.

Other than that, you get it more than most.

by Anonymousreply 9312/13/2012

R78

I love you. Romney is a moron, and would be no better than 0bama. He still believes that government can solve all our problems, and that banks aren't raping us day and night. The big corps control the government and write regulations that help them, while fucking us, and Romney was one of their bitches...just like 0bama.

by Anonymousreply 9412/13/2012

R86

If the government could use money properly, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Most are incompetent, lying, murderous, lazy, disgusting bureaucrats, and can spend "our" money like it is going out of style.

Wake up, fool.

by Anonymousreply 9712/13/2012

R88

The reason that interst rates are at 0% IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS BUYING DEBT!

They are artificially depressing the rate of interest to "stimulate" the economy (aka bail out the banks and keep the game going for a few more days/weeks/years) and are DESTROYING the ability for people to save money.

Wake the fuck up!!!

by Anonymousreply 9812/13/2012

R89/90/91

I want to meet you. I love you.

These fools that don't understand that once interest rates rise- and when they rise, they will rise FAST- it will FUCK the entire world, well, they make me sad. And sick.

So many of them will BEG for their all powerful government to save them, but since it will be broke...sorry.

by Anonymousreply 9912/13/2012

R89/90/91

Trolldar the fool at R92 and let me know what you think of her insane ramblings.

She thinks we can continue to print money, bail out banks and give unlimited power to the government to kill anyone who dissents.

See the link for another thread full of her crazy bullshit.

And call me!

by Anonymousreply 10012/13/2012

Troll-dar r100. Talk about insane ramblings!

by Anonymousreply 10112/13/2012

So much hysteria about a little debt. What we need is higher wages for the middle class. It will solve ALL our big economic problems. How do we get that? Reform corporate governance. This debt shit is all a sideshow. What we really need is serious fundamental corporate reform. CEO pay should be legally capped and employees should elect a member to the board of directors who has veto power over all executive compensation plans. No corporation should be allowed to own shares in any other. Who owns shares should be public information and it should be a felony to own shares in the name of someone else. No economist can defend the byzantine secrecy which currently infects Wall St. If that would cause a headache for institutions, trusts, and pension funds, to list the fractional shares owned by end individuals too fucking bad. If they are sophisticated enough to engage in computer program trading, they are sophisticated enough to report share ownership by the ultimate beneficiary.

by Anonymousreply 10212/13/2012

R101, agreed. We need to abandon this thread where OP spends 2/3 of the replies conversing with himself.

by Anonymousreply 10312/13/2012

R102, until the regulatory and banking system is destroyed, that is just a pipe dream for fools.

by Anonymousreply 10412/13/2012

[quote]During the first depression (not to be confused with the ongoing greater depression) the government did intervene, repeatedly, in the economy. Jobs digging ditches and then filling them at night, massive money printing, confiscation of assets- the government did a LOT, and it made it worse.

Of course, out here in the real world, the economy markedly improved when the government intervened, went back into recession again when Roosevelt followed the advice of idiots like you and prematurely stopped, then came fully out of recession with the ultimate stimulus package, World War II.

Tell us, what's the color of the sky in your world?

by Anonymousreply 10512/14/2012

[quote]At least one other person realizes that once all this money printing and bank bailouts reaches the natural conclusion that the result will be widespread misery for the 99%.

Too bad that none of you can actually provide any data or a logical economic rationale as to why this would occur when it's failed to occur the dozens of times before that this has been done.

[quote]I hope you have a supply of gold, food and lead!

Not to mention a rational theory as to why gold would be any use at all in the fantasy world of a total economic meltdown you're confidently predicting.

by Anonymousreply 10612/14/2012

1929 was certainly not our first depression, numbnuts, we had repeated depressions from earliest times and not once did government austerity assist the recovery. Indeed, the last time morons like you were in charge, the bad times lasted from 1873 to 1896.

by Anonymousreply 10712/14/2012

[quote]These fools that don't understand that once interest rates rise- and when they rise, they will rise FAST- it will FUCK the entire world, well, they make me sad. And sick.

So you've been claiming for years. And people like you have been claiming for decades.

And yet for decades these confident predictions have utterly failed to come true, just as this confident prediction of yours will also fail to come true. And yet you'll be back here next year, bumping this thread yet again, and confidently predicting that this time, really, I mean it, the economy really will tank, interest rates will soar, and hyperinflation will strike. And the fact that it doesn't won't change your economic views in the slightest. It really is quite wonderful.

by Anonymousreply 10812/14/2012

[quote]Troll-dar [R100]. Talk about insane ramblings!

Yup, but funny, so there's some redeeming value there.

by Anonymousreply 10912/14/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.