Really, all I am suggesting is that there are so many issues and problems with the two primary party candidates that taking a one issue stand as a means to divide the third party vote so that no third party can compete is the road to ruin.
The post was replying to smog in cities, largely caused by autos. That ship has sailed and the car companies aren't going to be able to push the product purchasers back to the 60s/70s.
As far as the rest of your comments - many are valid. I tend to think that since the various departments are under the executive branch, that Congress would be likely to shuffle some functions around as needed and would probably pass that legislation without much fuss. I wasn't necessarily even thinking of the EPA, although it certainly doesn't have a sound constitutional basis for existing. It's also an agency with cabinet level status, but really isn't on the same level as other departments. A lot of these were split out in the first place from other departments for political purposes to show we were serious about problem X or were created out of thin air because the existing departments couldn't communicate with each other in the first place. Recombining them isn't the drastic problem you point out.
I also think that regardless of the presence or absence of the EPA, the $1 bln dollar value you're throwing around would be just as effectively used greasing the palms of Congress to get legislation written to do whatever they wanted or carve out whatever exception they wanted anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Finally, keep in mind that war is frequently much more harmful to the environment than the worst polluter. It's also much more harmful to those directly involved. You may have many reasons for disliking the Libertarians, but their keep your noses out of other peoples business stance has its merits.
The environment (from a pollution standpoint) has improved massively over the last few decades. There have also been some notable disasters on the pollution standpoint that happened even with a strong EPA around. A large part of the reason for the improvements had to do with pollution controls on automobiles. I doubt seriously that companies are going to risk going back to the 60's or 70's policies and products - even if the EPA wasn't there to stop them. All the major manufactures are moving to electric or hybrid - I just wish they were feasible in our neck of the woods.
In addition, ballot issues on corporate proxies seeking accountability for issues like these are getting higher and higher percentages of For votes - regardless of the industry - so I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging towards conservatism and protecting the environment regardless of the party in political power at the time.
But even for all the good that the EPA has done, you still have companies like VW scamming the system. So saying that government is the solution really doesn't work either.
Reducing the federal government's size and scope doesn't necessarily mean that the functions it does will all disappear. Some will be taken over by other departments if they need to exist at the federal level, and some will be taken over by the states (where the founders of the country intended them to be).
I don't agree with every policy the Libertarians have either. Remember that many would take a law getting through Congress to enact anyway. For all the uselessness that I feel exists in the Department of Education, one of the things that I would champion is the Common Core - I just think it should push students harder than they are now being pushed but it is still a great idea. With the mobility of the population, it is absolutely required that there be no impact on kids education when they move from state A to state B. Each grade level must be expected to have mastered particular items and not have the hodgepodge that we have had for decades. Even within a single elementary school here, they have gone to different math curricula every couple of years. Different ones teach things at different times, leading to gaps in the kids educations. That is madness.
But I've digressed. There is no one single issue that I can think of that is so big that I would disqualify the current Libertarian slate of candidates. If elected, they may well not win a second term because the main parties will have to seriously re-evaluate their lives. That would be a good thing, in and of itself. As former governors, I think that they would probably govern OK. Not great - not horrible. But I'm OK with that.
You should vote for whatever candidate you feel best represents your views. If the Green Party is head and shoulders above the others, so be it. But if you are ambivalent between a couple of choices, then consider this.
This election I decided that both of the main party candidates were so bad that I had to pick the third party candidate that was actually on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian party would normally be my fourth choice, but my preferred third choice isn't on the ballot everywhere. So they won't win. Write-in votes simply don't happen enough. There is at least a chance that when people see the third option on the ballot, they might pick it this election. If your third party candidate isn't on the ballot everywhere, this won't happen.
The reason a third party vote usually fails is it is split so many ways. For a third party vote to actually mean anything, we need to unite behind a single third party. If the vote is split 20+ ways, none will make a difference. I'd urge you to consider picking the third party that actually is on the ballot everywhere. It wasn't my preferred candidate either, but it is the only realistic chance preventing a train wreck.
You can google it. Generally.44 cal or higher. Some say.357 is OK if you're a good shot. That good shot part is important if it's a cat. The bear is a bigger target, but good shots count there as well as the effective target that will stop them in their tracks isn't big. You don't just want to piss the predator off with a bad shot or an ineffective load or too small a round coming from a gun any more than hitting with a stick. Just the noise of a shot can be a deterrent for that matter. That's also why they recommend you just make noise when you're out in the woods so the predators will leave. As far as cats are concerned, many will say that if you've been in the forest at all, you've been observed by a cat at some point. They just don't generally attack people.
The point of a gun is range. If you get to the point you're trying to fight off a predator with a stick, you've lost. You'd probably be better off playing dead depending on the predator. That range advantage of guns versus sticks or feet and hands is true when dealing with criminals as well, BTW, but works for them as well as you.
Trouble is if you move your hand and break contact, you're out of luck till your finger matches up over the reader just right again. That just right is a tough thing to make happen cheaply. I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-profile my finger for my laptop to register the presence some of the time, nor how many times I've had to swipe my finger for it to be identified. The technology just doesn't seem to be there to do it reliably even without considering dirt, gloves, band-aids that might be present, and everything else.
Smart guns are great in theory, but fingerprint reading is just stupid. If you're worried about kids around your guns, buy a trigger lock or put them in a gun safe.
Through the teenage years and on to having improper relationships with other desktops and O/Ss. It's already having kids. Maybe in a few more years it'll settle down and be reasonable to be around again.
I'm a pretty average slashdotter. I recognize the North Korean leader's name when I see it, but I couldn't quote it off the top of my head. At this point, KJU simply isn't on the list of leaders of countries that are relevant to me and as fast as they go through leaders - may well never be. His policies don't seem any different from his predecessor(s), so I tend to think about N. Korea - the country - as opposed to who is currently running it.
That doesn't mean that I don't know anything about what is going on in N. Korea or what they have been doing. It doesn't mean I don't care about how deplorably they treat their own people. It doesn't mean I don't worry for nearby countries that we do a lot of business with that are directly threatened by North Korea and its nuclear ambitions. It doesn't mean I don't think China should be doing more to reign him in. I just don't happen to be great with names.
From what I've seen, Mr. Johnson is similar. He gives good opinions on what is going on in particular parts of the world - he just doesn't seem to associate names very well. Of all the things to worry about with the candidates this year, a command of names of leaders (and particularly the ability to name your favorite leader) seems way down on the list of things to worry about. That's why the White House has a staff and why we have a State Department.
Facts can be learned. Mr. Johnson is a reasonably smart guy and if he finds the need to learn specifics about transient world leaders, I'm sure he can do so.
Character is what you bring with you over a lifetime. You can't fake it for long. From what the press has actually produced on this front compared to the two mainstream candidates, Mr. Johnson wins hands down.
I would presume the same legislation that eliminated the corporate tax rate in the first place - limitations on the assets such companies could own which were unrelated to their services rendered.
This murky area keeps the IRS busy with the existing corporate structures individuals set up. I don't expect the IRS to be less busy under a corporate 0 tax rate structure and once all existing audits for pre corporate 0 tax rate were done, all their resources used there could redirected to examination of personal tax returns.
As has been noted by others with prices going the other way, if a company gets a lower tax bill because they are headquartered in a 0 tax jurisdiction, then they can reduce their prices to increase market share. I'm not saying they do this out of the goodness of their "hearts". It is just good business practice.
Companies can and do sell at a loss frequently. Their reasons vary - obviously they think that the net result will be beneficial for some corporate definition of beneficial. Red Hat, for example, chooses to provide all the infrastructure for the Fedora free home version of its product. It has hired the CentOS group. While there are license reasons why they cannot charge for RHEL and instead rely on support contracts, their is no reason they have to give away the infrastructure support for Fedora or CentOS. But they do because the feedback they get on those products help them with their main product - RHEL.
My assumption is that the legislation authorizing the removal of the taxes on corporations would also include incentives such that your corporate tax rate couldn't go to 0 unless certain conditions were fulfilled, one of which could be a reduction of prices by your average corporate tax rate over some period of time with some flexibility for existing inventories of goods.
This is Congress after all. Nothing happens without legislation and any move to 0 the corporate tax rate permanently would probably take a long time to move through Congress because they would know that once the legislation was passed there would be a huge drop in campaign contributions. They wouldn't go to 0, because there are other ways our Congress can "help" companies. But be assured that going to 0 with no strings attached would require a totally hypothetical universe.
One company may have little room to raise prices. If all sellers and manufacturers find their taxes raised, then they can all raise their prices together without any risk of someone saying they're colluding.
It may not be exactly the same percent for each seller because of all of the variables going into producing a product. Have no doubt though that increasing taxes on all businesses will raise prices. Since each company wants the same profit margin, the actual increase in prices is likely to be higher for long product chain companies than it would be if personal taxes were just raised instead by an equivalent dollar amount.
Or perhaps we should eliminate the fiction that companies pay taxes in the first place and just tax the people directly, thereby cutting out the middlemen. Any tax dollar a company pays to a government taxing authority is one that at some point in time will come from the price paid by a person for an end product. Everything else is just accounting games.
It is delusional to think that if every government extracted all the money they want from corporations, personal free cash flow would improve aggregated over a large enough sample of people. Every company would simply raise their prices and cut labor costs more to keep their desired profit margin and you'd end up spending your "tax savings" on every purchase you make. Maybe you don't buy Apple equipment - but you'd pay the higher prices on groceries, clothes, and other things.
Make America great? Eliminate corporate taxation completely! That would have the benefit of cutting out a big chunk of legal, accounting, and legislative burden in one fell swoop. Increase the income tax rates on the people to compensate. As Heinlen said TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. While we're at it, eliminate sales taxes, lodging taxes and all the other B.S. taxes we pay in bits and drabs and increase property taxes to compensate. Reduce the variety of all these garbage taxes to just two (income and property) and pay them once per year and you'd see a lot better accountability from the people passing legislation.
Or, Econ 101 could actually be used. If there isn't anyone able to pay the cost of housing and tuition and books and lab fees and miscellaneous fees because there isn't any lender of last resort, they'd also have to reduce their administrative overhead, close or just - you know - fire their overpaid sports coaches and close the athletics departments and have IM teams for exercise. Wow - I must still be dreaming and not awake yet. The thought that schools would put teaching ahead of building new training facilities for athletes - that's crazy talk.
The other big expense at colleges has been in buildings and particularly dorms. When I went back to visit the college I attended, I couldn't believe the changes in the dorms. My old dorm was still there and in use (and I know it was - well - aged would probably be polite compared to when I was there). It was still in use but it and its companion were slated for destruction soon and may have been by now. There wasn't anything wrong with the dorms I was in in my opinion, but in the attempts to attract new students all of the big colleges have been building new facilities to try to look attractive and provide all the amenities.
I agree that having people who want a broad education receive one is great. I completely agree that such an education is good for many careers. I also believe engineers, doctors, and scientists should be able to write well and spell and should know something of history and perhaps be familiar with some economic theory and a foreign language. I also believe that high school English, History, Foreign Language and the rest should be sufficient training for most everyone in those disciplines. Only economics and basic law are probably not taught in high school.
If they didn't go to a high school that taught anything, or they partied and didn't choose to learn anything in high school, then they probably aren't going to be in the school of engineering or in the science department anyway because they're tough majors. There are many other requirements at most colleges that are not useful for many degrees but are still requirements for graduation because colleges feel everyone should be well rounded and the big liberal arts programs need money. But it's not a two way street. The liberal degrees don't generally have to do much hard science or basic engineering. I'm not painting all degrees at public / private colleges as worthless, but there are certainly a great many courses being taught that are.
My comment wasn't directed at ITT or Corinthian or any other now defunct business and absolving them of any wrongs that they may or may not have done - I'm not their judge.
A private college can be structured to provide training in particular fields with faster certifications and without the broad spectrum of courses that you would have to take to get the same training that you are after at a public school. Whether they are or not is an exercise left to the potential students. Whether they succeed or not is almost always harder to judge, because the people who select these schools frequently have strikes against them at the outset, either from lack of time or resources or additional responsibilities that are making them look at a focused program rather than a longer term broader spectrum education you would get at a public or private college. They may have already had a host of problems that make them a poor candidate for public or private colleges, but might have a chance on a focused curriculum.
I was trying to say that the federal government's paying for education (grants, research dollars, loans that are forgivable if you do favored things) just allows the colleges to increase tuition till they are still getting the same money from students and parents. The costs of all higher education has - like medical care- risen much higher than inflation (3x or more in some cases). As long as there is an infinite pocket available, this will continue. All degrees have worth, but the comparison between tech colleges and community/public is not much different than the supposed benefits of top ranked colleges and their humble cc and state competitors. The hype isn't much different.
I guess part of the frustration I have is I like the principle of the tech education - get the degree you are interested in without supporting the broad based garbage you have to take to get a science or engineering degree at most schools. I read War and Peace (unabridged) on my own because I wanted to. I didn't need a college class to broaden my experience. Likewise, people interested in teaching English (or Russian) aren't expected to take Calculus. Probably just a gear head's perception at the existing inequalities in what people have to take, but anyway..
How much money goes to the favored public and private institutions from the federal government? There are plenty of worthless degrees you can get at any institution. None of their promises of employment or employment at a particular wage are worth anything.
Why is it all right to go after the technical schools and not go after everybody else?
They should just stop the funding and let all the colleges adapt. The more they've subsidized students costs of attending, the higher the tuition has been priced. Just stop already.
Mass transit is more efficient big cities where you actually have a "mass" to move to a particular spot regularly.
If you live in a city that is smaller, mass transit will never be more efficient. There are simply too few people needing to go to or even near any one spot at any one time.
How about all the cell phone service providers increase the number of towers so you can get a reliable signal in buildings and not have to go outside to make a call. That'd make a lot of customers far happier in the long run than the inconvenience of not being able to use your cell phone at an event where you're most likely not wanting to be bothered with a call at all and are likely to be asked to keep your cell phones OFF.
Whether it is competitive or not, no company really pays taxes. They just take them out of the income they get from sales and remit them to the appropriate taxing authority. So the end purchaser pays the taxes. It would be better to own up to that, reduce prices for goods, eliminate taxes and all the legalese required to collect it, and just increase the individual tax burden to compensate for any differences. It's that eliminating the legalese in the tax code that is the toughest to achieve because it would take legislation to accomplish and the legislative leaders... well, I'm trying to be nice today.
You can also alter tax policy. It does cost money and particularly time to transport cheaply from China to the US. Eliminate corporate taxes since they are passed on to the customers anyway and you'll have more US based manufacturing. Whether it would completely fix the problem or not is anybody's guess - but it would put a dent in it.
I also seriously doubt they will ignore it - Cameron is resigning after all. But the vote was still very close. It wasn't 80/20, 70/30 or even 60/40. It was very close. A case could be made for there not being enough of a mandate to make a huge change in the country prudent.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, all I am suggesting is that there are so many issues and problems with the two primary party candidates that taking a one issue stand as a means to divide the third party vote so that no third party can compete is the road to ruin.
The post was replying to smog in cities, largely caused by autos. That ship has sailed and the car companies aren't going to be able to push the product purchasers back to the 60s/70s.
As far as the rest of your comments - many are valid. I tend to think that since the various departments are under the executive branch, that Congress would be likely to shuffle some functions around as needed and would probably pass that legislation without much fuss. I wasn't necessarily even thinking of the EPA, although it certainly doesn't have a sound constitutional basis for existing. It's also an agency with cabinet level status, but really isn't on the same level as other departments. A lot of these were split out in the first place from other departments for political purposes to show we were serious about problem X or were created out of thin air because the existing departments couldn't communicate with each other in the first place. Recombining them isn't the drastic problem you point out.
I also think that regardless of the presence or absence of the EPA, the $1 bln dollar value you're throwing around would be just as effectively used greasing the palms of Congress to get legislation written to do whatever they wanted or carve out whatever exception they wanted anyway, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Finally, keep in mind that war is frequently much more harmful to the environment than the worst polluter. It's also much more harmful to those directly involved. You may have many reasons for disliking the Libertarians, but their keep your noses out of other peoples business stance has its merits.
The environment (from a pollution standpoint) has improved massively over the last few decades. There have also been some notable disasters on the pollution standpoint that happened even with a strong EPA around. A large part of the reason for the improvements had to do with pollution controls on automobiles. I doubt seriously that companies are going to risk going back to the 60's or 70's policies and products - even if the EPA wasn't there to stop them. All the major manufactures are moving to electric or hybrid - I just wish they were feasible in our neck of the woods.
In addition, ballot issues on corporate proxies seeking accountability for issues like these are getting higher and higher percentages of For votes - regardless of the industry - so I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging towards conservatism and protecting the environment regardless of the party in political power at the time.
But even for all the good that the EPA has done, you still have companies like VW scamming the system. So saying that government is the solution really doesn't work either.
Reducing the federal government's size and scope doesn't necessarily mean that the functions it does will all disappear. Some will be taken over by other departments if they need to exist at the federal level, and some will be taken over by the states (where the founders of the country intended them to be).
I don't agree with every policy the Libertarians have either. Remember that many would take a law getting through Congress to enact anyway. For all the uselessness that I feel exists in the Department of Education, one of the things that I would champion is the Common Core - I just think it should push students harder than they are now being pushed but it is still a great idea. With the mobility of the population, it is absolutely required that there be no impact on kids education when they move from state A to state B. Each grade level must be expected to have mastered particular items and not have the hodgepodge that we have had for decades. Even within a single elementary school here, they have gone to different math curricula every couple of years. Different ones teach things at different times, leading to gaps in the kids educations. That is madness.
But I've digressed. There is no one single issue that I can think of that is so big that I would disqualify the current Libertarian slate of candidates. If elected, they may well not win a second term because the main parties will have to seriously re-evaluate their lives. That would be a good thing, in and of itself. As former governors, I think that they would probably govern OK. Not great - not horrible. But I'm OK with that.
There's more than one. Google
for another.
You should vote for whatever candidate you feel best represents your views. If the Green Party is head and shoulders above the others, so be it. But if you are ambivalent between a couple of choices, then consider this.
This election I decided that both of the main party candidates were so bad that I had to pick the third party candidate that was actually on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian party would normally be my fourth choice, but my preferred third choice isn't on the ballot everywhere. So they won't win. Write-in votes simply don't happen enough. There is at least a chance that when people see the third option on the ballot, they might pick it this election. If your third party candidate isn't on the ballot everywhere, this won't happen.
The reason a third party vote usually fails is it is split so many ways. For a third party vote to actually mean anything, we need to unite behind a single third party. If the vote is split 20+ ways, none will make a difference. I'd urge you to consider picking the third party that actually is on the ballot everywhere. It wasn't my preferred candidate either, but it is the only realistic chance preventing a train wreck.
You can google it. Generally .44 cal or higher. Some say .357 is OK if you're a good shot. That good shot part is important if it's a cat. The bear is a bigger target, but good shots count there as well as the effective target that will stop them in their tracks isn't big. You don't just want to piss the predator off with a bad shot or an ineffective load or too small a round coming from a gun any more than hitting with a stick. Just the noise of a shot can be a deterrent for that matter. That's also why they recommend you just make noise when you're out in the woods so the predators will leave. As far as cats are concerned, many will say that if you've been in the forest at all, you've been observed by a cat at some point. They just don't generally attack people.
The point of a gun is range. If you get to the point you're trying to fight off a predator with a stick, you've lost. You'd probably be better off playing dead depending on the predator. That range advantage of guns versus sticks or feet and hands is true when dealing with criminals as well, BTW, but works for them as well as you.
Trouble is if you move your hand and break contact, you're out of luck till your finger matches up over the reader just right again. That just right is a tough thing to make happen cheaply. I can't tell you how many times I've had to re-profile my finger for my laptop to register the presence some of the time, nor how many times I've had to swipe my finger for it to be identified. The technology just doesn't seem to be there to do it reliably even without considering dirt, gloves, band-aids that might be present, and everything else.
Smart guns are great in theory, but fingerprint reading is just stupid. If you're worried about kids around your guns, buy a trigger lock or put them in a gun safe.
Assuming the predator isn't big enough that you just piss it off by hitting it with a stick.
Through the teenage years and on to having improper relationships with other desktops and O/Ss. It's already having kids. Maybe in a few more years it'll settle down and be reasonable to be around again.
I'm a pretty average slashdotter. I recognize the North Korean leader's name when I see it, but I couldn't quote it off the top of my head. At this point, KJU simply isn't on the list of leaders of countries that are relevant to me and as fast as they go through leaders - may well never be. His policies don't seem any different from his predecessor(s), so I tend to think about N. Korea - the country - as opposed to who is currently running it.
That doesn't mean that I don't know anything about what is going on in N. Korea or what they have been doing. It doesn't mean I don't care about how deplorably they treat their own people. It doesn't mean I don't worry for nearby countries that we do a lot of business with that are directly threatened by North Korea and its nuclear ambitions. It doesn't mean I don't think China should be doing more to reign him in. I just don't happen to be great with names.
From what I've seen, Mr. Johnson is similar. He gives good opinions on what is going on in particular parts of the world - he just doesn't seem to associate names very well. Of all the things to worry about with the candidates this year, a command of names of leaders (and particularly the ability to name your favorite leader) seems way down on the list of things to worry about. That's why the White House has a staff and why we have a State Department.
Facts can be learned. Mr. Johnson is a reasonably smart guy and if he finds the need to learn specifics about transient world leaders, I'm sure he can do so.
Character is what you bring with you over a lifetime. You can't fake it for long. From what the press has actually produced on this front compared to the two mainstream candidates, Mr. Johnson wins hands down.
I would presume the same legislation that eliminated the corporate tax rate in the first place - limitations on the assets such companies could own which were unrelated to their services rendered.
This murky area keeps the IRS busy with the existing corporate structures individuals set up. I don't expect the IRS to be less busy under a corporate 0 tax rate structure and once all existing audits for pre corporate 0 tax rate were done, all their resources used there could redirected to examination of personal tax returns.
As has been noted by others with prices going the other way, if a company gets a lower tax bill because they are headquartered in a 0 tax jurisdiction, then they can reduce their prices to increase market share. I'm not saying they do this out of the goodness of their "hearts". It is just good business practice.
Companies can and do sell at a loss frequently. Their reasons vary - obviously they think that the net result will be beneficial for some corporate definition of beneficial. Red Hat, for example, chooses to provide all the infrastructure for the Fedora free home version of its product. It has hired the CentOS group. While there are license reasons why they cannot charge for RHEL and instead rely on support contracts, their is no reason they have to give away the infrastructure support for Fedora or CentOS. But they do because the feedback they get on those products help them with their main product - RHEL.
My assumption is that the legislation authorizing the removal of the taxes on corporations would also include incentives such that your corporate tax rate couldn't go to 0 unless certain conditions were fulfilled, one of which could be a reduction of prices by your average corporate tax rate over some period of time with some flexibility for existing inventories of goods.
This is Congress after all. Nothing happens without legislation and any move to 0 the corporate tax rate permanently would probably take a long time to move through Congress because they would know that once the legislation was passed there would be a huge drop in campaign contributions. They wouldn't go to 0, because there are other ways our Congress can "help" companies. But be assured that going to 0 with no strings attached would require a totally hypothetical universe.
One company may have little room to raise prices. If all sellers and manufacturers find their taxes raised, then they can all raise their prices together without any risk of someone saying they're colluding.
It may not be exactly the same percent for each seller because of all of the variables going into producing a product. Have no doubt though that increasing taxes on all businesses will raise prices. Since each company wants the same profit margin, the actual increase in prices is likely to be higher for long product chain companies than it would be if personal taxes were just raised instead by an equivalent dollar amount.
Or perhaps we should eliminate the fiction that companies pay taxes in the first place and just tax the people directly, thereby cutting out the middlemen. Any tax dollar a company pays to a government taxing authority is one that at some point in time will come from the price paid by a person for an end product. Everything else is just accounting games.
It is delusional to think that if every government extracted all the money they want from corporations, personal free cash flow would improve aggregated over a large enough sample of people. Every company would simply raise their prices and cut labor costs more to keep their desired profit margin and you'd end up spending your "tax savings" on every purchase you make. Maybe you don't buy Apple equipment - but you'd pay the higher prices on groceries, clothes, and other things.
Make America great? Eliminate corporate taxation completely! That would have the benefit of cutting out a big chunk of legal, accounting, and legislative burden in one fell swoop. Increase the income tax rates on the people to compensate. As Heinlen said TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. While we're at it, eliminate sales taxes, lodging taxes and all the other B.S. taxes we pay in bits and drabs and increase property taxes to compensate. Reduce the variety of all these garbage taxes to just two (income and property) and pay them once per year and you'd see a lot better accountability from the people passing legislation.
Or, Econ 101 could actually be used. If there isn't anyone able to pay the cost of housing and tuition and books and lab fees and miscellaneous fees because there isn't any lender of last resort, they'd also have to reduce their administrative overhead, close or just - you know - fire their overpaid sports coaches and close the athletics departments and have IM teams for exercise. Wow - I must still be dreaming and not awake yet. The thought that schools would put teaching ahead of building new training facilities for athletes - that's crazy talk.
The other big expense at colleges has been in buildings and particularly dorms. When I went back to visit the college I attended, I couldn't believe the changes in the dorms. My old dorm was still there and in use (and I know it was - well - aged would probably be polite compared to when I was there). It was still in use but it and its companion were slated for destruction soon and may have been by now. There wasn't anything wrong with the dorms I was in in my opinion, but in the attempts to attract new students all of the big colleges have been building new facilities to try to look attractive and provide all the amenities.
I agree that having people who want a broad education receive one is great. I completely agree that such an education is good for many careers. I also believe engineers, doctors, and scientists should be able to write well and spell and should know something of history and perhaps be familiar with some economic theory and a foreign language. I also believe that high school English, History, Foreign Language and the rest should be sufficient training for most everyone in those disciplines. Only economics and basic law are probably not taught in high school.
If they didn't go to a high school that taught anything, or they partied and didn't choose to learn anything in high school, then they probably aren't going to be in the school of engineering or in the science department anyway because they're tough majors. There are many other requirements at most colleges that are not useful for many degrees but are still requirements for graduation because colleges feel everyone should be well rounded and the big liberal arts programs need money. But it's not a two way street. The liberal degrees don't generally have to do much hard science or basic engineering. I'm not painting all degrees at public / private colleges as worthless, but there are certainly a great many courses being taught that are.
My comment wasn't directed at ITT or Corinthian or any other now defunct business and absolving them of any wrongs that they may or may not have done - I'm not their judge.
A private college can be structured to provide training in particular fields with faster certifications and without the broad spectrum of courses that you would have to take to get the same training that you are after at a public school. Whether they are or not is an exercise left to the potential students. Whether they succeed or not is almost always harder to judge, because the people who select these schools frequently have strikes against them at the outset, either from lack of time or resources or additional responsibilities that are making them look at a focused program rather than a longer term broader spectrum education you would get at a public or private college. They may have already had a host of problems that make them a poor candidate for public or private colleges, but might have a chance on a focused curriculum.
I was trying to say that the federal government's paying for education (grants, research dollars, loans that are forgivable if you do favored things) just allows the colleges to increase tuition till they are still getting the same money from students and parents. The costs of all higher education has - like medical care- risen much higher than inflation (3x or more in some cases). As long as there is an infinite pocket available, this will continue. All degrees have worth, but the comparison between tech colleges and community/public is not much different than the supposed benefits of top ranked colleges and their humble cc and state competitors. The hype isn't much different.
I guess part of the frustration I have is I like the principle of the tech education - get the degree you are interested in without supporting the broad based garbage you have to take to get a science or engineering degree at most schools. I read War and Peace (unabridged) on my own because I wanted to. I didn't need a college class to broaden my experience. Likewise, people interested in teaching English (or Russian) aren't expected to take Calculus. Probably just a gear head's perception at the existing inequalities in what people have to take, but anyway..
How much money goes to the favored public and private institutions from the federal government? There are plenty of worthless degrees you can get at any institution. None of their promises of employment or employment at a particular wage are worth anything.
Why is it all right to go after the technical schools and not go after everybody else?
They should just stop the funding and let all the colleges adapt. The more they've subsidized students costs of attending, the higher the tuition has been priced. Just stop already.
Mass transit is more efficient big cities where you actually have a "mass" to move to a particular spot regularly.
If you live in a city that is smaller, mass transit will never be more efficient. There are simply too few people needing to go to or even near any one spot at any one time.
To say nothing of slower drive times and idling while defrosting and/or scraping frost and clearing snow so you can see to drive.
How about all the cell phone service providers increase the number of towers so you can get a reliable signal in buildings and not have to go outside to make a call. That'd make a lot of customers far happier in the long run than the inconvenience of not being able to use your cell phone at an event where you're most likely not wanting to be bothered with a call at all and are likely to be asked to keep your cell phones OFF.
Whether it is competitive or not, no company really pays taxes. They just take them out of the income they get from sales and remit them to the appropriate taxing authority. So the end purchaser pays the taxes. It would be better to own up to that, reduce prices for goods, eliminate taxes and all the legalese required to collect it, and just increase the individual tax burden to compensate for any differences. It's that eliminating the legalese in the tax code that is the toughest to achieve because it would take legislation to accomplish and the legislative leaders ... well, I'm trying to be nice today.
You can also alter tax policy. It does cost money and particularly time to transport cheaply from China to the US. Eliminate corporate taxes since they are passed on to the customers anyway and you'll have more US based manufacturing. Whether it would completely fix the problem or not is anybody's guess - but it would put a dent in it.
I also seriously doubt they will ignore it - Cameron is resigning after all. But the vote was still very close. It wasn't 80/20, 70/30 or even 60/40. It was very close. A case could be made for there not being enough of a mandate to make a huge change in the country prudent.
Wonder how Canada would react to that?
He did say a few hundred years - you don't think we'll have a tether by then?